How should judges assess the return which would have been produced by a hypothetical alternative investment? This was one of the issues in the Court of Appeal case of Watson v Kea Investments, which concluded in October 2019. The question can arise in various contexts. Where bad advice has caused a client to invest in X rather than Y, the return which would have been achieved by Y may be relevant to a damages claim against the adviser. In Watson, it arose in the context of trustee investments.
Click here to read the full article on the FT Adviser website (Financial Times).
