Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1545966
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 26 JULY 2026 LAW When professional financial advice goes wrong JULIAN MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates FINANCIAL advisers play an important role in helping indi- viduals make informed financial decisions. While no adviser can guarantee that an investment will generate a positive return, the law nevertheless imposes clear obligations to ensure that any investment recommended is suitable for the particular client. These obligations recently came under scrutiny before the Court of Appeal in Malcolm Ma- son vs Aventis Financial Plan- ning Limited, where the court upheld a decision of the Arbiter for Financial Services after find- ing that part of a retail investor's pension had been invested in a fi- nancial product that was unsuit- able for his agreed investment profile. The case arose from a com- plaint filed by Malcolm Mason, who had transferred his pension in 2013 after seeking professional investment advice from Aventis Financial Planning Limited, for- merly known as Lawsons Equity Limited. As part of the advisory process, Mason completed a con- fidential client fact-find which classified him as a retail client with a balanced attitude towards risk. The documentation also re- corded that he had no financial qualifications or significant in- vestment experience, and wished to invest in a manner broadly equivalent to a mainstream UK equity fund. Despite this profile, approxi- mately one quarter of Mason's pension was invested in the Pres- tige Alternative Finance Fund, a Cayman Islands-based invest- ment fund. Years later, when Mason sought to withdraw his pension benefits, he discovered that this investment had become illiquid, therefore preventing the closure of his pension whilst fees continued to accrue. He sub- sequently lodged a complaint before the Arbiter for Financial Services, alleging that the invest- ment recommended to him was incompatible with the risk pro- file and investment objectives that had been established at the outset of the advisory relation- ship. The arbiter upheld the com- plaint, concluding that the Pres- tige Alternative Finance Fund was unsuitable for a retail inves- tor with a balanced risk profile. Aventis appealed the decision, arguing, amongst other things, that the investment had been appropriate, that the arbiter had exceeded his powers, and that part of the compensation award- ed fell outside his jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal, however, rejected each of these arguments and confirmed the arbiter's deci- sion in its entirety. The court's analysis centred on whether the advice provided by Aventis Financial Planning Lim- ited was appropriate for Mason's individual circumstances. Al- though the company argued that the investment portfolio reflect- ed Mason's objectives and that the losses were ultimately caused by external factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in interest rates, neither the arbiter nor the court accept- ed those arguments. The court attached particular importance to Mason's investor profile. He had been classified as a retail client with a balanced attitude towards risk, yet part of his pension was invested in the Prestige Alternative Finance Fund, a product which the Court noted was intended for experi- enced investors and classified as a higher-risk investment. The judgment further observed that the fund required a minimum investment of £60,000, despite Mason having invested just over £12,000 in it. Endorsing the arbiter's conclu- sions, the court stated that "the appellant was not the appropri- ate investor for this type of in- vestment". It went on to observe that the adviser nevertheless in- vested approximately 20% of Ma- son's pension in a fund that was considered unsuitable for a retail client with his risk profile. The judgment serves as an im- portant reminder that the du- ty owed by financial advisers is not limited to recommending investments capable of produc- ing favourable returns. Rather, advisers must ensure that the products they recommend are suitable for the particular client. Consequently, the legality of the advice is assessed by reference to the client's circumstances when the recommendation is made, and not simply by looking at how the investment subsequently performs. The judgment is also notewor- thy for its confirmation of the broad remedial powers vested in the Arbiter for Financial Services under Chapter 555 of the Laws of Malta. On appeal, Aventis argued that the arbiter had exceeded his jurisdiction by not only awarding compensation but also directing that any future proceeds deriv- ing from the Prestige Alternative Finance Fund be assigned to the company itself, thereby allowing Mason to sever his relationship with the investment altogether. The court rejected this argu- ment. Referring to Article 26(3) (c) of the Arbiter for Financial Services Act, it held that the ar- biter's powers extend beyond the mere award of monetary compensation and include the authority to "review, rectify, mit- igate or alter the conduct com- plained of or its consequences". Applying that provision, the court concluded that requiring Aventis to assume control of the disputed investment, after com- pensating Mason for his losses, formed part of rectifying the consequences of the unsuitable advice. In doing so, the court reaffirmed that the role of the arbiter is not confined to determining whether a financial services provider has acted improperly. Where appro- priate, the arbiter may also fash- ion practical remedies aimed at restoring the complainant, as far as possible, to the position they would have occupied had the un- suitable conduct not occurred. This judgment is an important reaffirmation of the legal obliga- tions that govern the provision of investment advice. In dismissing the appeal, the court confirmed that the assessment of whether financial advice is appropriate does not depend on whether an investment ultimately proves profitable or loss-making, but on whether the recommendation was suitable for the particular client at the time it was made. In doing so, the court reinforced the importance of properly assessing an investorss objectives, financial circumstances, level of experi- ence and appetite for risk before recommending any investment product. The judgment also provides valuable guidance on the role of the Arbiter for Financial Ser- vices within Malta's regulato- ry framework. By confirming both the findings of the Arbiter and the remedies awarded, the court reaffirmed that the legal protections afforded to inves- tors extend beyond the award of compensation and may include practical measures aimed at rec- tifying the consequences of un- suitable financial advice.