"To the extent that Mr Sherman's (the sales representative) advice fell within the scope of his actual authority, LAS (Life Association of Scotland)/Britannia is responsible for it; and to the extent that such advice was negligent, LAS/Britannia is liable for it." (Para.5.1.).

"In my judgment, advice as to the "merits" of buying or surrendering an "investment" cannot be sensibly treated as confined to a consideration of the advantages or disadvantages of a particular "investment" as a product, WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE WIDER FINANCIAL CONTEXT in which the advice is tendered." (Para.5.2.5.).

"For example, in advising as to the merits of taking out a mortgage-related policy such as the Homeplan Plus policy it would in my judgment be (AT BEST) WHOLLY UNREALISTIC, AND (AT WORST) POSITIVELY MISLEADING, TO LEAVE OUT OF THE ACCOUNT THE MERITS OR OTHERWISE OF ENTERING INTO THE UNDERLYING MORTGAGE TRANSACTION which the policy is designed to support." (Para.5.2.5.).

"In my judgment it is neither appropriate in the context of the 1986 Act, nor for that matter would it be realistic, to seek to limit the concept of "investment advice" by reference to the extent to which the advice relates to the "merits" (i.e. to the advantages or disadvantages) of a particular "investment" as defined; and if that be accepted, it seems to me that it must follow that the concept of "investment advice" will comprehend ALL FINANCIAL ADVICE GIVEN TO A PROSPECTIVE CLIENT WITH A VIEW TO OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE, SALE OR SURRENDER OF AN "INVESTMENT", INCLUDING ADVICE AS TO ANY ASSOCIATED OR ANCILLARY TRANSACTION NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH TRANSACTION MAY NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "INVESTMENT BUSINESS" FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE 1986 ACT." (Para.5.2.5.)

"The issue which arises is as to the extent to which such authority extended beyond giving of advice in relation to LAS products, and in particular whether it extended to the giving of advice IN RELATION TO THE BANK OF SCOTLAND MORTGAGE…" (Para.5.2.11).

"In my judgment, just as "investment advice" extends beyond advice as to the merits or otherwise of a particular "investment" as a product, Mr Sherman's (the sales representative's) authorised activities under the 1990 agreement (which, as I pointed out earlier, mirror the provisions of s. 44 (3) of the 1986 Act) SIMILARLY SO EXTENDED." (Para.5.2.12).

"Rule 3.4 (4) of the LAUTRO Rules 1988 imposes an absolute obligation on a member to ensure that its company representatives comply with the Code of Conduct set out in Schedule 2 to the Rules…" (Para.5.2.13).

"I accordingly conclude that Mr Sherman had actual authority, pursuant to the 1990 agreement, (and s.44) TO ADVISE AS TO THE REMORTGAGE…" (Para.5.2.14).

OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY: "Accordingly, had Mr Sherman (the sales representative) lacked actual authority to advise Mr and Mrs Martin concerning the remortgage, I would have held that he had ostensible authority to do so." (Para.5.3.7.)

PART 6: THE BREACH OF DUTY ISSUE:

"As both the expert witnesses repeatedly emphasise, an adviser can only advise; the decision is for the client. BUT THE ADVISER'S DUTY IS TO MAKE SURE, SO FAR AS HE CAN, THAT THE CLIENT'S DECISION IS AN INFORMED ONE." (Para.6.2.2).

PART 8: THE SECTION 62 ISSUE.

Section 62 (1) in Chapter V of the 1986 Act is in the following terms (so far as material):

"…a contravention of (a) any rules or regulations made under this Chapter…shall be actionable at the suit of a person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention…the LAUTRO Rules 1988 were made under Chapter V of the 1986 Act." (Para.8.1.).

"Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct provides that a company representative shall exercise due skill, care and diligence in his business dealings AND SHALL DEAL FAIRLY WITH INVESTORS." (Para.8.2.).