Introduction
The case of Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton LLP [2021] UKSC 20 represents a significant development in the application of the SAAMCO principle to professional negligence claims, particularly in the context of accountants' advice. The Supreme Court's judgment clarified the scope of liability for professionals providing advice or information, addressing the distinction between "advice" and "information" cases under the South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd (SAAMCO) principle. This principle, established in 1997, limits the liability of professionals to losses arising from the risks they were retained to address.
The case centered on whether Grant Thornton LLP, an accounting firm, was liable for losses incurred by Manchester Building Society (MBS) due to incorrect interest rate hedging advice. The Supreme Court's decision refined the application of the SAAMCO principle, emphasizing the need to assess the purpose of the professional's duty and the scope of their responsibility. This judgment has far-reaching implications for professional negligence claims, particularly in the accounting and financial advisory sectors.
The SAAMCO Principle: Background and Evolution
The SAAMCO principle, established by the House of Lords in 1997, provides a framework for determining the extent of a professional's liability in negligence claims. It distinguishes between cases where a professional provides "advice" and those where they provide "information." In "advice" cases, the professional is responsible for guiding the client's decision-making process, and their liability extends to all foreseeable consequences of that advice. In "information" cases, the professional's liability is limited to the consequences of the information being wrong.
The principle was initially applied in SAAMCO to limit the liability of valuers in property transactions. However, its application to other professions, such as accountants and financial advisors, has been less straightforward. The Manchester Building Society case provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify how the SAAMCO principle applies to accountants' advice, particularly in complex financial transactions.
Facts of the Case
Manchester Building Society (MBS) engaged Grant Thornton LLP to provide accounting advice regarding its financial strategy, specifically its use of interest rate swaps to hedge against interest rate fluctuations. Grant Thornton advised MBS that it could use "fair value hedge accounting" to mitigate the impact of interest rate changes on its financial statements. Relying on this advice, MBS entered into long-term interest rate swaps.
However, Grant Thornton's advice was incorrect. The use of fair value hedge accounting was not permissible under the relevant accounting standards, leading to significant financial losses for MBS when interest rates fell. MBS claimed that Grant Thornton was negligent in providing this advice and sought damages for the losses incurred.
The Legal Issues
The key legal issue in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton LLP was whether Grant Thornton's liability was limited by the SAAMCO principle. The court had to determine whether the case fell into the "advice" or "information" category and, consequently, the scope of Grant Thornton's liability.
The Supreme Court also addressed the broader question of how the SAAMCO principle applies to professional negligence claims involving complex financial advice. This required an analysis of the purpose of the professional's duty and the extent to which the losses claimed by MBS were within the scope of that duty.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, held that Grant Thornton's liability was limited by the SAAMCO principle. The court found that the case was an "information" case rather than an "advice" case, meaning that Grant Thornton's liability was restricted to the consequences of the information being wrong.
Lord Hodge, delivering the leading judgment, emphasized the importance of identifying the purpose of the professional's duty. He stated that the scope of liability should be determined by the risks that the professional was retained to address. In this case, Grant Thornton was retained to provide accounting advice, not to guide MBS's overall financial strategy. Therefore, its liability was limited to the consequences of the incorrect accounting advice, rather than the broader financial losses incurred by MBS.
The court also clarified that the SAAMCO principle applies equally to cases involving complex financial advice, provided that the purpose of the professional's duty is clearly defined. This decision reinforces the importance of establishing the scope of a professional's duty at the outset of any engagement.
Implications for Professional Negligence Claims
The Manchester Building Society judgment has significant implications for professional negligence claims, particularly in the accounting and financial advisory sectors. By clarifying the application of the SAAMCO principle, the Supreme Court has provided greater certainty for professionals and their clients regarding the scope of liability.
One key implication is the need for clear engagement terms that define the purpose and scope of the professional's duty. This will help to establish whether a case falls into the "advice" or "information" category and, consequently, the extent of the professional's liability.
The judgment also highlights the importance of distinguishing between the risks that a professional is retained to address and those that fall outside their scope of responsibility. This distinction is particularly relevant in complex financial transactions, where multiple professionals may be involved, each with a specific role.
Practical Considerations for Professionals
Professionals, particularly accountants and financial advisors, should take note of the Manchester Building Society judgment when providing advice to clients. The following practical considerations are recommended:
-
Define the Scope of Engagement: Clearly outline the purpose and scope of the professional's duty in engagement letters or contracts. This will help to establish the limits of liability in the event of a dispute.
-
Identify the Risks Addressed: Ensure that the risks being addressed by the professional's advice are clearly identified and communicated to the client. This will help to distinguish between "advice" and "information" cases.
-
Document Advice and Assumptions: Maintain detailed records of the advice provided, including any assumptions or limitations. This documentation can be essential in defending against negligence claims.
-
Review and Update Engagement Terms: Regularly review and update engagement terms to reflect changes in the scope of the professional's duty or the client's requirements.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton LLP [2021] UKSC 20 represents a significant development in the application of the SAAMCO principle to professional negligence claims. By clarifying the distinction between "advice" and "information" cases, the court has provided greater certainty for professionals and their clients regarding the scope of liability.
The decision highlights the importance of clearly defining the purpose and scope of a professional's duty at the outset of any engagement. It also highlights the need for professionals to carefully document their advice and the risks they are retained to address. These considerations are particularly relevant in complex financial transactions, where the scope of liability can have significant financial implications.
In summary, the Manchester Building Society judgment affirms the principles established in SAAMCO while providing practical guidance for professionals in the accounting and financial advisory sectors. It serves as a reminder of the importance of clarity and precision in professional engagements, both to protect clients and to limit the scope of liability for professionals.
