Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton" />(Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton  EWCA Civ 40)." />
The item you have requested is not currently available in English and you have been redirected to the next available page. You may use your browser's back button to return to the item you were viewing.
Learn more about our Canada capabilities
Learn more about our United States capabilities
Learn more about our Latin America and the Caribbean capabilities
Learn more about our Europe capabilities
Learn more about our United Kingdom capabilities
Learn more about our Central and Eastern Europe capabilities
Learn more about our Russia, CIS and the Caucasus capabilities
Learn more about our Africa capabilities
Learn more about our Middle East capabilities
Learn more about our Central Asia capabilities
Learn more about our China capabilities
Learn more about our ASEAN capabilities
Learn more about our Asia Pacific capabilities
Learn more about our Australia capabilities
At Dentons, we bring together top tier talent found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal expertise. Start by clicking here
Dentons Ranked No. 1 in Midwest Real Estate News "Best of the Best 2018"
For the fifth consecutive year, Dentons' Real Estate practice has been ranked No. 1 on the "Best of the Best" list by Midwest Real Estate News.
With all the changes and announcements in 2018, our Eurozone Hub has collated the following supervisory outlook for 2019 as a non-exhaustive “Playbook” for Banking Union Supervised Institutions and other regulated market participants already based in or otherwise relocating to the EU and/or the Eurozone.
Canada Federal Budget 2019
In the wake of the release of the much-anticipated 2019 Federal Budget, members of Dentons’ Tax group, together with a team at Wolters Kluwer, have prepared a Special Report which provides a detailed analysis and concise summary of the changes featured in the Budget.
Global tax guide to doing business in... 2019
Our Global tax guide to doing business in… highlights the complexities of corporate tax systems in 28 countries across Africa, the Americas, Asia Pacific, Australia and Europe.
US Policy Scan 2019
In Policy Scan 2019, Dentons' US Public Policy team's annual analysis of the legislative and political landscape, we take a close look at the issues, questions and conflicts that will dominate the dialogue on Capitol Hill and in the White House over the coming year.
Starting your career as a student at Dentons exposes you to a world of experience and opportunities
Dentons is home to top-tier talent that is found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal experience. Working with Dentons, you will have the opportunity to learn from the best lawyers in the industry at the largest law firm in the world.
The Legal 500 EMEA 2019 recognizes over 130 Dentons lawyers
The 2019 edition of The Legal 500 Europe, Middle East and Africa has recognized 133 Dentons lawyers, of which 89 have been included in the elite “Leading Lawyers” list, while 44 are listed as “Next Generation Lawyers”.
Dentons launches Market Insights publication: “Digital Transformation and the Digital Consumer”
Dentons, the world’s largest law firm, has launched a new Market Insights publication entitled “Digital Transformation and the Digital Consumer”, which examines the legal implications of the online economy.
Dentons ranks across 68 tables securing 109 individual and 43 practice rankings in Chambers USA
Global law firm Dentons earned 109 individual and 43 practice rankings - a 20% increase over last year - in the most recent edition of Chamber USA.
The Court of Appeal has considered the application of the "SAAMCO principle" in deciding the scope of an auditor's liability for negligent accounting advice (Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton  EWCA Civ 40). It confirmed that the correct approach to the issue of liability was to assess whether the case was an "advice" or an "information" case, rather than asking an open-ended question as to the extent of a party's assumption of responsibility.
Manchester Building Society (MBS) issued a number of fixed-interest lifetime mortgages. In order to hedge the risk of its own cost of borrowing, MBS entered into long-term interest rate swaps. In doing so, it relied on advice from its auditors, Grant Thornton (GT), concerning the accounting treatment of the swaps in its financial statements. GT advised MBS that it could apply "hedge accounting" in order to reduce the effect of volatility of the fair value of the swaps in its accounts. That advice was negligent as MBS was not entitled to apply hedge accounting.
Once the error was discovered, MBS had to account for the swaps at fair value, namely, at their mark-to-market (MTM) value. The impact of the change in accounting treatment on its financial position was significant and resulted in MBS having insufficient regulatory capital. It therefore closed out the swaps, which were heavily "out of the money" because of the fall in interest rates following the financial crisis. The MTM value it paid to break the swaps early was £32.7 million.
MBS's claim for the MTM losses failed at first instance. Although the judge found that causation was established, he held that GT was not liable as it had not assumed responsibility for the MTM losses – it had only advised on the accounting treatment of the swaps and these were market losses, due to the fall in interest rates.
MBS appealed. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered the application of the SAAMCO principle (so called from the House of Lords decision in South Australia Asset Management Corp v. York Montague Ltd  AC 191) in assessing the scope of a negligent adviser's liability.
In SAAMCO, the House of Lords held that a valuer was not liable for all the foreseeable market-related losses suffered as a result of a lender entering into a loan in reliance on the valuer's negligent valuation, and was liable only for the consequences of the valuation being wrong. This was based on the principle that a person under a duty to take reasonable care to provide information on which someone else will decide upon a course of action is, if negligent, not generally regarded as responsible for all the consequences of that course of action, only for the consequences of the information being wrong.
The principle therefore distinguishes between:
This has given rise to what is referred to as the "SAAMCO cap", which limits the recoverable damages in an information case to exclude those losses which would have been suffered even if the information had been correct.
The Court of Appeal held that the case was clearly one in which the SAAMCO principle applied. Hamblen LJ summarised the factors to be considered in applying the SAAMCO principle (as clarified by the Supreme Court in Hughes-Holland v. BPE Solicitors  UKSC 21):
The Court concluded that the judge was wrong to approach the issue of liability on the basis of whether GT had assumed responsibility for the losses rather than considering whether this was an "advice" or "information" case.
On the undisputed facts and the judge's findings (including that MBS's decision to enter into the swaps was based not only on GT's advice, but also on other commercial considerations), the Court of Appeal held that this was not an advice case: GT gave accounting advice but was not involved in the decision to enter into the swaps. The purpose and effect of the advice is what matters, and GT's advice did not involve responsibility for "guiding the whole decision-making process" of entering into the lifetime mortgages and swaps. The Court concluded that this was an information case.
The Court noted that it was striking that MBS's claim for damages consisted of the fair value of the swaps and that receiving fair value does not ordinarily give rise to any loss.
MBS contended that the cause of its MTM losses was GT's negligence, as a result of which it had to close out the swaps early. That required MBS to prove the counterfactual: that the loss would not have been suffered had it continued to hold the swaps. However, the best evidence of that was their fair market value at the time of closing out – in other words, their MTM value. The Court concluded that, while the closing-out of the swaps at fair value crystallised the loss of the swaps being "out of the money", it did not create the loss, which was the result of market forces.
The judge had therefore been wrong to find that MBS had established that the MTM losses would not have been suffered had GT's advice been correct. However, the Court of Appeal agreed with his overall conclusion that GT was not liable for the MTM losses, and dismissed the appeal.
The decision helpfully summarises the factors to be considered when applying the SAAMCO principle in a professional negligence case. Those factors include as a first step identifying whether the case concerns information or advice. This is not always straightforward, as was recognised in the Hughes-Holland case. In that case, the Supreme Court commented that the two categories are not distinct or mutually exclusive – information given by a professional is usually a specific form of advice, and most advice will involve providing information.
This case reflects the courts' wider concern that the scope of claims against professional advisers should be limited. Whilst the Court of Appeal disagreed with the approach taken by the judge at first instance, it agreed that GT's responsibility was limited to giving accounting advice and did not come close to extending to responsibility for the entire lifetime mortgage/swaps business, repeating the judge's observation that:
"…it would be a striking conclusion to reach that an accountant who advises a client as to the manner in which its business activities may be treated in its accounts has assumed responsibility for the financial consequences of those business activities...".
Unsolicited emails and other information sent to Dentons will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others, may not receive a response, and do not create a lawyer-client relationship. If you are not already a client of Dentons, please do not send us any confidential information.
You are switching to another language. Please click Confirm below to continue.
You will now be taken from the global Dentons website to the $redirectingsite website. To proceed, please click Accept.