Jeffrey is an experienced financial adviser who has just met with Lily, a long-term client who is seeking advice about an investment prospect she has read about. Although Lily is quite wealthy and can be categorised as a wholesale client, she is not very experienced as an investor. The investment she is interested in is a high dividend yield listed fund, with which Jeffrey is very familiar. The fund was heavily invested in blue chip shares, though unbeknownst to Jeffrey, it has recently taken a significant position in a variety of higher risk shares to boost its dividend yields. This change in approach has been reported on widely in the financial press. From his previous dealings with Lily, Jeffrey is aware that she is very risk averse and is always looking for security in her investments. Jeffrey's advice to Lily is based on his outdated knowledge of the fund, and he assures her that it is a uniformly blue chip investment, with almost no risk of capital loss. Further, he refers to recent government announcements suggesting that the economy looks set for strong performance in the short term, which should give the market confidence to surge ahead. On the basis of his advice, Lily invests heavily in the fund. Due to some poor economic news that conflicts with the government announcements, the market drops not long after Lily's investment, and the fund's asset value falls due to a significant exposure to high risk shares. Lily is forced to redeem her investment at a significant loss. What principles does Lily need to establish negligence and what evidence is there in the case study to support her claim against Jeffrey in a tort for negligence? Note to students: You do not need to provide a definitive answer as to whether Lily will win any action against Jeffrey.