The original award of $72,700was made by District Court Judge Peter Spiller, who ruled Hamilton-based AFA Rodney Hartles had breached both the Fair Trading Act and his duty of care in his advice given to retired pharmacist Ken Gilmour.

However, he ruled that Hartles' company Decisionmakers (Waikato), not Hartles himself, was liable; Decisionmakers has since been put into liquidation without paying any of the damages award.

Downloand decision here

The judge found Hartles had been negligent in failing to do a proper needs analysis and investment plan, leaving Gilmour "exposed and at risk" with an inappropriate investment portfolio that included a $100,000 investment in Bridgecorp.

Both parties appealed the District Court decision, with Gilmour arguing against the liability finding and against deductions made by Judge Spiller from the $100,000 total, which was based on the Bridgecorp investment.

Decisionmakers cross-appealed against the damages award, disputing a number of the judge's findings including that it had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, that it had breached its duty of care and that Gilmour was looking for a low-to-medium risk portfolio.

Justice Mark Woolforddismissed Decisionmakers' cross-appeal, saying the crucial finding was that Hartles had failed to identify Gilmour's goals.

Justice Woolfordreferred to email evidence he said supported Judge Spiller's finding that Gilmour had been in a "twilight zone" where his adviser had "inadequate information or records about his client."

He also hiked the amount awarded, ruling that Judge Spiller had erred in deducting 15% from the total based on an assessment of whether Gilmour would have placed his funds in low-to-medium risk investments had Hartles' advice met the required standard.

The deduction had been based on a precedent set in the Armitage v Church case, but Justice Woolford said the factual situation was "quite different" in this case.

He said Gilmour, who knew little about finance companies, could be "contrasted with Mr Armitage who knew of and had clearly expressed views about finance companies."

Finally, he ruled that as the sole director of the company and having personally advised Gilmour, Hartles was the "alter ego" of the company and "should be responsible personally for the statements he made that were held to be misleading."

Downloand decision here