Tax barrister advising film scheme did not have a duty of care to investors
In D McClean and others v A Thornhill KC[2023] EWCA Civ 466 (28 April 2023) the Court of Appeal (CA) found that the High Court (HC) had not made an error of law in deciding that an eminent tax barrister Mr Thornhill KC who advised a failed film finance tax scheme did not owe a duty of care to investors in the scheme. However the CA considered the HC was wrong to conclude that had such a duty of care been owed to the investors it would not have been breached.
The appellants were members of limited liability partnerships (LLPs) that were formed for the purpose of acquiring and exploiting distribution rights to films. The scheme was marketed to potential investors on the basis that they would be...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Tax barrister advising film scheme did not have a duty of care to investors
In D McClean and others v A Thornhill KC[2023] EWCA Civ 466 (28 April 2023) the Court of Appeal (CA) found that the High Court (HC) had not made an error of law in deciding that an eminent tax barrister Mr Thornhill KC who advised a failed film finance tax scheme did not owe a duty of care to investors in the scheme. However the CA considered the HC was wrong to conclude that had such a duty of care been owed to the investors it would not have been breached.
The appellants were members of limited liability partnerships (LLPs) that were formed for the purpose of acquiring and exploiting distribution rights to films. The scheme was marketed to potential investors on the basis that they would be...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
