A legal battle has unfolded between two retired St James’s Place (SJP) advisers and a current partner concerning the sale of a £4m client portfolio. The conflict, highlighting issues within SJP’s internal acquisition process, revolves around an unpaid final instalment of £813,503 by the purchasing partner.

The buyer, an active SJP partner, withheld the payment, alleging that the retired advisers misrepresented the portfolio’s value. She claims that many clients were not receiving regular reviews, and some were deceased at the time of the sale.

The sellers initiated legal action in the High Court, demanding the outstanding £813,503 plus 8% interest, accruing at £178 daily. The defendant has responded with a counterclaim for damages, citing breaches of agreement and misrepresentation.

Details of the Portfolio Sale

In 2021, John Cross, a founding partner of Cross Financial Services (CFS) and a long-standing SJP principal since the 1990s, chose to retire alongside his wife, Sherry Cross. Having built a significant client portfolio, Cross entered discussions with Helen Rogers, a current SJP adviser, and her business partner and husband, Steven Pidding, according to court records.

Rogers, who operates her own SJP practice in Knightsbridge, London, finalised the purchase in July 2021. The agreement included an upfront payment of £3.2m, with a further £813,503 due 18 months later, covering approximately 800 clients.

However, Rogers failed to make the final payment, prompting the sellers to pursue legal action in the High Court.

Allegations and Counterclaims

The case, heard at the County Court in Central London, saw Rogers defend her non-payment by alleging misrepresentation by the sellers. Court documents state that, after the acquisition on 26 July 2021, Rogers discovered breaches of warranties and misrepresentations in the sale agreement.

Rogers’ counterclaim asserts that John and Sherry Cross overstated their relationship with the clients and neglected regular servicing. Specifically, the defence claims:

• Many clients had not received investment reviews since their plans began.
• Clients seeking withdrawals were not given proper advice.
• Several clients were deceased, rendering their plans inactive.
• A significant portion of clients, representing £1.2m of the purchase price, expressed dissatisfaction with the sellers’ service standards.

Rogers argues that these issues justify withholding the £813,503 payment. Her counterclaim seeks damages, which she claims may exceed the disputed amount.

Our Thoughts

Whilst SJP has chosen not to comment on the matter it is worth noting that SJP are not the only company regularly involved in client book sales. The lack of regular reviews is a systematic issue in Financial Advice which the FCA are addressing under consumer duties.

In 2024 SJP set aside a reported £430 million towards redress for claims relating to lack of annual reviews, however this does not include claims for mis-selling and overcharging.

We have handled hundreds of claims against SJP and other financial advisers in similar circumstances.

All clients deserve to be valued over and above what they are worth on an annual basis or when somebody decides to retire.

You can read more about financial advisers selling their clients in a recent article here.

If you want help investigating a claim against a financial adviser or SJP, book a free consultation with one of our experts today.