What to do when closure advice appears to conflict
- Reading time
- 2 minutes
- Last reviewed
On this page
When two advisers appear to disagree, avoid resolving the problem by choosing the answer that makes the closure easier. First establish what each was asked and what information they used.
An accountant may be commenting on tax treatment while a solicitor is addressing contractual permission. Those answers can differ in purpose without contradicting one another. Both may still matter before the proposed action can proceed.
Put the two answers alongside the questions
Prepare a comparison with the following entries for each response: the adviser, date, question asked, facts supplied, scope of work, conclusion and conditions. Link to the original response rather than paraphrasing it into a yes-or-no box.
The adviser scope record helps establish what was actually commissioned. A professional who was asked about one issue should not be assumed to have approved all the others.
Check dates and versions carefully. Consistent facts may reveal that one answer assumed a complete closure while another assumed continued work, or that one adviser did not know about a proposed personal asset retention.
Ask a neutral clarification question
Describe the apparent difference without accusing either person of being wrong. Ask whether the answers concern the same proposal and whether an omitted fact changes either assessment.
A fictional owner has been told that a proposed transaction needs further valuation evidence and separately that a particular approval route is available. Those statements address different questions. Treating the second as permission to ignore the first would create a conclusion neither adviser gave.
Where the issue remains unresolved, ask the relevant professionals how it should be coordinated, including whether further specialist input is needed. Arrange any exchange of documents or advice through appropriate authority and confidentiality arrangements.
The assumptions log should retain the context after the clarification. Do not replace the original answer with an owner's interpretation that removes its limitations.
Keep the dependent action visible
Identify which commitment depends on resolving the difference. There may still be useful information gathering to do, but the disputed point should not disappear from the working plan because a date is approaching.
Tell the authorised coordinator what remains open and who is following it up. If the answer changes the timetable or scope, update the relevant people once the position is confirmed.
For UK Auction Group, provide a concise account of the disposal consequence: for example, an asset group remains outside formal instructions pending clarification. The auctioneer should not be asked to choose between legal or tax opinions. Its equipment work can be coordinated around the properly established outcome of that advice.
Explore advisers and sale authority.
Sources
This guide is general information and education only. Legal, tax, employment and safety decisions may need a qualified adviser who knows your situation. Read the disclaimer.