An investor in a managed investment scheme who did not read the Product Disclosure Statement in any detail, and who invested primarily on the basis of tax advice from financial advisers, cannot establish reliance on the content or absence of content in the PDS for the purposes of claims based on defective disclosure or misleading conduct. Formulaic evidence of reliance that merely repeats the pleaded case is insufficient. Where the joint opinion of financial experts establishes that the Group's financial capacity to manage schemes was not at significant risk so long as bankers continued their support, a pleaded case based on cash flow risk to scheme viability fails. A plaintiff who reformulates the nature of the alleged risk at trial (from cash flow risk to business model/financing risk) without amending the statement of claim will be confined to the pleaded case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.