Not upheld: execution of share sale orders at lower than expected price during trading halt complaint against Halifax Share Dealing Limited (trading as Bank of Scotland Share Dealing)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S complained that Halifax sold his shares at $0.99 instead of the approximately $8 price displayed when he placed his sell order on 26 June 2025. The shares were in a NASDAQ-listed company subject to a fraud scheme, and Mr S placed his order during a trading halt, though he was unaware of this. Halifax executed the order as soon as trading resumed at the best available price. The ombudsman found that Mr S had placed an 'at best' order (not a limit order with a specific price), meaning Halifax was obliged to sell at the best available price at execution, not at the indicative screen price. Although Halifax could have provided more information about the trading halt and the indicative nature of the price, the ombudsman found this was not unfair within the context of an execution only service where the customer is responsible for their own trading decisions. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr S had an execution only account with Halifax and placed an 'at best' order, which means the shares would be sold at the best available price at execution, not at the indicative price displayed. Although the displayed price was indicative only and trading was halted, Halifax executed the order as soon as trading resumed at the best available price ($0.99), which was what Mr S instructed it to do. The ombudsman noted that while Halifax could have provided more information (as some competitors do), this does not necessarily mean Halifax acted unfairly within the context of an execution only service. Mr S, as an experienced account holder of ten years, was responsible for understanding his own trading decisions. The ombudsman rejected the argument that Halifax should have double-checked with Mr S, as this would introduce delays and risk of further price slippage contrary to the nature of execution only services. The ombudsman also noted that if Mr S had waited, he likely would have received even less or been unable to sell at all.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website