In the Ingenious film partnerships group litigation, the High Court ruled that the claimants should provide extended disclosure in relation to their investment history, as this may be relevant to: (i) their risk appetite and financial sophistication, which may in turn inform the scope of the defendants’ duty of care in providing advice; and (ii) causation of any loss as a result of alleged fraudulent and negligent representations regarding the Ingenious structure.
The claimants were ordered to disclose records of actual and potential investments over a period three years before and one year after their investments in the Ingenious structure.
The disclosure included investments whether or not they were made through the banks and advisers who are parties to the litigation.
The court’s approach will be of interest and assistance to financial institutions and financial advisers when resisting misselling claims.
The court noted the guidance provided by the court in McParland and Partners Ltd v Whitehead  EWHC 298 (Ch) that the “watchword” of the Disclosure Pilot is that an order for extended disclosure must be “fair, proportionate and reasonable”. The judge noted claims in the Ingenious Litigation are thought to collectively over £200 million. Whether investment history disclosure will be considered proportionate in lower value cases remains to be seen.
View the judgment: Rowe and Ors v Ingenious Media and Ors  EWHC 1731 (Ch)