The recent case of O'Hare and another v Coutts & Co  EWHC 2224 (QB) concerned the duty of care when giving financial advice. The court adopted the approach taken by the Supreme Court in a Scottish medical negligence case (Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board  UKSC 11) by focusing on what the claimant, as an informed investor, would expect to be told and not on whether the defendant had advised in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of persons skilled in the giving of financial advice. The judge was influenced in his decision by the fact that the expert evidence indicated that there was little consensus in the industry about how to manage the risk appetite of clients. The decision suggests that the giving of investment advice is not simply an exercise of professional skill; an informed investor, like a medical patient, is entitled to decide the risks that he is willing to take and has to take responsibility for his own mistakes. The negligence claim was dismissed and the court held that the defendant had not breached its duty (in contract and in tort) to exercise reasonable skill and care when advising the claimants on making certain investments.