The Supreme Court has today denied permission to appeal in the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision on SIPP operator’s liability. This decision means any SIPP operators who have accepted business from unregulated introducers are at serious risk of liability if the introducer’s actions strayed into regulated activities such as ‘arranging’. However, the SIPP operator industry will have to wait for any more clarity on the scope of an ‘execution only’ operator’s duty under COBS 2.1.1R, a point which the High Court largely dismissed, but which did not get a hearing on appeal.

For more information about this case and what it means for SIPP operators, see the helpful updates from my colleagues, Suzanne Padmore, Leonardo Robinson and Anna Davis:

Adams v Options in the Court of Appeal: Good and bad news for SIPP providers? (

Russell Adams v Carey Pensions: What does it mean for SIPP operators? (