Options UK Personal Pensions (formerly Carey UK Pensions) has sought permission from the Supreme Court to appeal the recent judgment by the Court of Appeal in the long-running and pivotal Adams v Carey SIPP case.

Earlier this month a Court of Appeal Judge overturned a previous High Court ruling and sided with claimant Russell Adams against Carey Pensions in the Adams SIPP case.

The case involves the question of provider responsibility when accepting investments into a SIPP.

Some experts have warned that the judgment, unless successfully appealed, could spark £1bn of claims against SIPP firms.

The Court of Appeal unanimously overturned its previous ruling and found that Adams was advised by CLP Brokers, an unregulated introducer based in Spain. The court said that as CLP was not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to give investment advice, or make arrangements relating to investments, this was in contravention of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

As the SIPP was entered into following advice given by CLP, the High Court declared that the SIPP agreement is unenforceable against Adams and he is entitled to recover money he paid into it, as well as compensation to reflect losses he suffered as a consequence.

Alan Kentish, CEO of Options’ parent company STM Group Plc, said: “It is a natural step for Options, having spoken with its advisers, to request leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. There are clearly some very significant factors here that will not only impact the SIPP market, but also the wider United Kingdom financial services market as a whole. It seems there could be significant unintended consequences flowing from the judgment.

“There are real risks for firms and third parties who may have inadvertently stepped over an unclear regulatory line. This is a wholly undesirable outcome for providers and firms involved in the financial services sector and will drive up costs for consumers. The whole market needs more guidance on this issue, and we hope that this would be forthcoming as part of any appeal to the Supreme Court.”