Accountant ordered to pay cost over Great Southern advice
A South Australian accountant's advice to invest in failed agriculture investment schemes has cost him more than $400,000.
The Supreme Court of South Australia ordered David Abram to pay damages of $412,242, plus costs, to a client after an appeal.
Abram's client, Gary Jackson, had initially been awarded damages of $288,240 and costs up until 4 July 2013, with Jackson being ordered to pay costs for the remainder of the proceedings up to 24 September 2014, on the grounds that he had failed to accept a filed offer from the respondents of 19 June 2013 to consent to judgment in the sum of $257,000 plus interest and costs.
Court documents revealed that Jackson made the following investments in schemes that were managed and promoted by the Great Southern Group:
- 2005 plantations project — $15,000;
- 2006 cattle project — $140,000;
- 2007 cattle project — $140,000;
- 2007 olive project and options — $48,000; and
- 2008 wine grape project — $102,200.
The Supreme Court found that the initial judge erred in not finding that that Abram was liable in damages to Jackson for a loss from his investment in the 2006 cattle project in the sum of $119,000, and for not finding Abram liable for the loss of the entire $140,000 invested by Mr Jackson in the 2007 cattle project.
The initial judge found that Abram was negligent in three ways:
- Because he failed to warn Jackson of the risk of having such a large proportion of his investment in Great Southern;
- Because he failed to advise Jackson to spread the risk; and
- Because he actively encouraged Jackson to place further investments with Great Southern after Jackson had expressed concern about "putting all his eggs in one basket"
AUTHOR
Nicholas O'Donoghue
Recommended for you
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
New Zealand’s financial regulator is following the footsteps of its Tasman neighbours and proposing to conduct a review on improving the accessibility of financial advice and advice business models.
