Financial Services & Markets Tribunal
Case 062
Name of Decision: Heather, Moor & Edgecomb Limited 
(21kb)
APPEALS FROM THE TRIBUNAL – Application for permission – Decision as to permission – Whether appeal raises point of law – Whether Tribunal considers appeal to have real prospect of success – Whether any other compelling reason why appeal be heard – Application refused – FS&MT Rules 2001 r.24
Case 061
Name of Decision: Legal & General Assurance Society Limited (46kb)
Case 060
Name of Decision: Shevlin Oliver (18kb)
PROCEDURE – non–compliance with "unless order" – whether appropriate to vary unless order – no – application dismissed
Case 059
Name of Decision: Heather Moor And Edgecomb Ltd (25kb)
PERMISSION TO CARRY ON REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Cancellation of Part IV permission – Failure to comply promptly with FOS award – Whether Applicant a fit and proper person.
Case 058
Name of Decision: Fox Hayes permission to appeal (165kb)
PERMISSION TO APPEAL – Tribunal reduced penalty imposed by Authority from £150,000 to £146,000 – application by Authority for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal – limited permission granted – FSMA 2000 s137; Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 SI 2001 No. 2476 r24
Case 057
Name of Decision: Salman Khan (125kb)
Cancellation of Part IV permission – Threshold conditions, failure to submit on 3 occasions form RMAR – Importance of compliance with submission of form; reference allowed in consideration of particular personal circumstances and undertakings to the extent that FSA directed to substitute monetary penalty with other conditions failing compliance with which directed to cancel Applicant’s Part IV permission
Case 056
Name of Decision: Fox Hayes Penalty (157kb)
PENALTY – penalty of £150,000 imposed by the Authority on the basis that the Applicant had received net profits from the business of £29,975 – in the First Decision in this reference the Tribunal indicated that, on the basis of its then findings, it would reduce the penalty to £70,000 – fresh evidence that the senior partner of the Applicant had also received commissions of $814,039 from the business – whether these commissions were profits of the Applicant – yes – whether the amount of the penalty should be increased from £70,000 – yes – penalty determined at £146,000. – FSMA 2000 s 206(1)
Case 055
Name of Decision: Litaid Ltd (142kb)
Variation of Part IV Permission – Failure to submit Retail Mediation Activities Return on time – Failure to obtain professional indemnity insurance – whether failure showed that Applicant not conducting business soundly and prudently – Condition 5 – whether failure to respond to Authority in relation to Retail Mediation Activities Return involved a breach of Principle 11 (Relations with Regulators)
Case 054
Name of Decision: Norman McIntosh & LA Mortgage Services (136kb)
APPROVED PERSON – withdrawal of approval – whether person to whom the approval was given was fit and proper to perform the function to which the approval related – no – FSMA 2000 s 63
AUTHORISED PERSON – cancellation of permission – whether resources of authorised person adequate in relation to regulated activities – no – whether authorised person fit and proper – FSMA 2000 s 45 and Sch 5 paras 4 and 5
Case 053
Name of Decision: Qumar Hussain (136kb)
SUPERVISORY NOTICE – Application for direction to suspend effect of notice until reference disposed of – Notice varied Applicant's permission by removing all regulated activities with immediate effect – Reason for notice being breach of threshold condition 5 – In application for permission to conduct regulated activities the Applicant failed to disclose relevant convictions – Applicant failed to disclose convictions taking place after his approval – Applicant refuses to cease carrying out regulated activities notwithstanding the notice – Whether Tribunal satisfied that the direction to suspend the effect of the notice would not prejudice the interests of the consumers – No – Whether necessary for notice to take effect immediately – Yes – Whether register should include no particulars about the reference – No – Applications dismissed – Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 SI 2001 NO2476 Rule 10(1)(e), Rule 10(6) and Rule 10(9)
Case 052
Name of Decision: Agarwala (72kb)
SUPERVISORY NOTICE – application for a direction to suspend effect of Notice until reference disposed of – Notice varied a Part IV permission by removal of all regulated activities with immediate effect – reason for Notice being breach of threshold conditions and Principles 1 (conducting business with integrity); 6 (treating customers fairly); and 11 (dealing with FSA in an open and co–operative way) – in his applications for permission to conduct regulated activities the Applicant had failed to disclose that he had been erased from the Register of Practising Insurance Brokers in 1993; that he had been expelled from membership of the Personal Investment Authority in 1997; and that the Financial Ombudsman Service had expressed the preliminary view in 2003 that advice to a client about pension arrangements had not been suitable and that the Applicant should pay redress if there had been any loss – whether Tribunal satisfied that a direction to suspend the effect of the Notice would not prejudice the interests of consumers – no – whether necessary for notice to take effect immediately – yes – whether removal of all regulated activities proportionate to the concerns being addressed by the Notice – yes – application dismissed – Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 SI 2001 No. 2476; Rule 101((e) and 10(6)
Case 051
Name of Decision: Hussain (96kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – own–initiative variation of permission – supervisory notice varying a Part IV permission by removing all regulated activities with immediate effect – failure by applicant to disclose convictions for dishonesty when making application – failure to disclose further conviction for dishonesty occurring after permission granted – applicant communicating with Authority in abusive, insulting and threatening terms – applicant's refusal to comply with notice despite failing in application to Tribunal to have it suspended – refusal to submit final RMAR – failure to notify clients of withdrawal of permissions – whether fit and proper person – no – supervisory notice correct action for Authority to take – reference dismissed
Case 050
Name of Decision: Stephen John Edwards (96kb)
APPROVAL – Controlled function – Investment adviser – Whether fit and proper – Individual agent made three mortgage agency applications for his principal – Agent submitted his personal bank details and not those of principal – Errors corrected once drawn to his attention – Whether despite those errors individual agent remains a fit and proper person – Yes, by majority vote of Tribunal – FSMT 2000 ss 59 and 60
Case 049
Name of Decision: Henton revised (118kb)
PROHIBITION ORDER – whether Applicant fit and proper to perform functions in relation to all regulated activities carried on by authorised persons generally – no in respect of all currently regulated activities – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s 56
Case: 048
Name of Decision: Henton (93kb)
PRELIMINARY ISSUE – Applicant prohibited from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried on by an authorised or exempt person or exempt professional firm because it appeared to the Authority that he was not a fit and proper person – Applicant had been found to be dishonest by the High Court in a civil trial – whether the judgment of the High Court was admissible evidence in the reference – yes – whether it would be an abuse of process to permit the Applicant to challenge the findings of the High Court by adducing relevant evidence, and presenting relevant arguments, to the Tribunal – no – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s 56
Case: 047
Name of Decision: Fox Hayes (264kb)
FINANCIAL PROMOTIONS – approval of non–real time financial promotions for unauthorized overseas persons – whether Applicant was able to show that it had taken reasonable steps to ensure that promotions clear, fair and not misleading – yes – whether Applicant had no reason to doubt that the overseas persons would deal with customers in the UK in an honest and reliable way – yes until mid–November 2003 but no thereafter – whether Applicant arranged for confirmation (that the promotions complied with the rules) to be carried out by an individual with appropriate expertise – yes – whether Applicant conducted its business with due skill, care and diligence – yes – whether penalty of £150,000 excessive – further submissions invited – FSMA 2000 Ss 21, 138 and 206 – Conduct of Business Rules 3.6.1; 3.8.4; 3.12.6; Principles for Businesses, Principle 2.
Case: 046
Name of Decision: JAN LAURY and FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY (32kb)
Decision notice – third party rights – FSMA s393 – whether applicant identified in notice – no
Case: 045
Name of Decision: Haworth final decision (40kb)
AUTHORISATION – Part IV permission – Cancellation – Fit and proper person – Whether Applicant falls short of Threshold Condition 5 – Whether Applicant has failed to conduct business with integrity and in compliance with proper standards and failed to treat customer fairly – Yes – Reference dismissed
Case: 044
Name of Decision: Virendra Rai Agarwala (T/A Abbex Insurance) and Financial Services Authority (40kb)
AUTHORIZATION – Part IV permission – Cancellation – Fit and proper person – Whether Applicant falls short of Threshold Condition 5 – Whether Applicant has failed to conduct business with integrity and in compliance with proper standards and failed to treat customers fairly and failed to be open and co–operative with the Authority – Yes – Reference dismissed
Case: 043
Name of Decision: G R Piggott decision final (76kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – prohibition order – whether Applicant a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to regulated activities carried on by an authorised person – no – use of forged documents – whether abuse of process to go behind court decisions in which forged documents accepted as valid – no
Case: 042
Name of Decision: PS MORTGAGES LIMITED and STANLEY OLUTOLA (40kb)
Fit and proper person – Sections 40 and 60 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – Disciplinary finding by professional body and Applicant’s omission to disclose it on application for approval – References dismissed
Case: 041
Name of Decision: Rafiq Ahmed Petkar (40kb)
PROHIBITION ORDER – Revocation or variation – Circumstances relevant to application to revoke or vary – Whether circumstances present in Applicant's reference to require variation of order – No – Reference dismissed
Case: 040
Name of Decision: Cost Decision of Davidson & Tatham (40kb)
COSTS – whether the disputed decision of the Authority was unreasonable – yes – whether the Authority acted vexatiously, frivolously or unreasonably in connection with the proceedings – no – FSMA 2000 Sch 13 para 13(1) and (2)
Case: 039
Name of Decision: William Faulkner T/A Policylink and Apsley Homes Estate Agency (158kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Own–initiative variation of permission – Supervisory notice varied a Part IV permission by removal of all regulated activities with immediate effect – Reason for Notice being breaches of threshold condition 5 (suitability) and Principles 1 (conducting business with integrity) and 11 (dealing with FSA in an open and cooperative way) – In his application for permission to conduct regulated activities the Applicant had failed to disclose a number of relevant convictions and had also failed to disclose that he had been the subject of bankruptcy proceedings – Whether notice to that effect is the appropriate action for the Authority to take – Yes – Application dismissed
Case: 038
Name of Decision: Rotton Park/Winson Green Credit Union Ltd & Financial Services Authority (40kb)
CREDIT UNION – Adequacy of resources – Value of Credit Union's assets less than value of its liabilities – Whether removal of permission to accept deposits and imposition of requirements not to make new loans, redeem members' shares or repay any deposits is appropriate – Yes
Case: 037
Name of Decision: James Parker & Financial Services Authority (40kb)
MARKET ABUSE – senior accountant employed by listed company – knowledge of company's difficult relations with major customer and likely effect on turnover and profit – knowledge that talks about takeover of company by larger competitor abandoned – whether informed or able to conclude that profit warning to market inevitable in near future – whether information relevant – yes – whether information generally available – no – whether knowledge influenced Applicant's sales of shares and spread betting in advance of announcement leading to dramatic fall in price of company's shares – yes – whether Applicant's conduct part of an existing strategy amounting to a safe harbour – no – FSMA ss 118, 119, 122, 123 – COMC – burden and standard of proof – reference dismissed
PENALTY – principles to be applied in determining amount of financial penalty – FSMA s 124 – ENF 14 – recovery of abusive profit – measure of additional penal element – penalty reduced to reflect true level of abusive profit but penal element substantially undisturbed
Case: 036
Name of Decision: Philippe Jabre & Financial Services Authority (Decision on Market Abuse) (40kb)
MARKET ABUSE – Confidential information – Sales through Tokyo market of shares quoted on London Stock Exchange – Allegation that sales followed receipt by Applicant of confidential information – Tokyo market is not a “prescribed market” – Whether shares so sold were “traded on a market to which this section applies” i.e. the London Stock Exchange – Yes – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s.118(1)(a)
Case: 035
Name of Decision: Case: 035 – Philippe Jabre & Financial Services Authority (Decision on Jurisdiction) (40kb)
TRIBUNAL – Jurisdiction – Matter referred – Decision to fine Applicant for market abuse and breaches of Principles 2 and 3 – Decision referred to Tribunal – Authority's statement of case contends that Tribunal should determine as appropriate action the withdrawal of Applicant's approval or the prohibition of the Applicant – Whether Authority's contention as to the appropriate action relates to the "matter referred" – Yes – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s.133
Case: 034
Name of Decision: Ravi Manchanda & Financial Services Authority (117kb)
Fit and proper person – Sections 61 and 186 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – Mortgage broker – Alleged failure to detect fraud – Reference allowed
Case: 033
Name of Decision: Vrajlal Laxmidas Sodha & Financial Services Authority (134kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Permission – Refusal of application – Threshold Conditions 4 and 5 – Numerous previous complaints – Failure to disclose previous warning – Whether Tribunal satisfied as to Applicant's suitability – No – Reference dismissed
Case: 032
Name of Decision: Frederick George Young & Eversure Financial Services Ltd (184kb)
AUTHORIZATION – Suitability – Fitness and propriety – Applicant firm's connections with other persons in a relevant relationship – Those other persons refused approval on grounds of non–disclosure – No other person to carry out controlled functions – Whether Applicant firm satisfies "fit and proper" test – No – Threshold Condition 5
Case: 031
Name of Decision: Paul Davidson and Ashley Tatham (357kb)
MARKET ABUSE – company to be listed on the Alternative Investment Market – take up of shares in the placing slow – the idea emerged that if a spread bet were placed then the spread betting firm would hedge the bet through a contract for differences with a counterparty who would then hedge the contract for differences by purchasing shares in the placing thus completing the placing – whether either or both of the Applicants engaged in market abuse – no – whether penalties should have been imposed – no – whether the amounts of the penalties were appropriate – no – whether Mr Tatham was in breach of Principles 2 and 3 – no – references determined in favour of the Applicants – FSMA 2000 Ss 64,66, 118 and 123.
Case: 030
Name of Decision: NDI Insurance Brokers Ltd (40kb)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION – non–investment insurance activities – application refused on grounds that controlling shareholder whose approval as Director (CF1) was included in application was not fit and proper (Threshold Condition 5) and because in consequence the company would not have the requisite resources (Threshold Condition 4) – Tribunal finding that director not fit and proper but no other reason to refuse application – whether resignation of director and disposal of his shares sufficient to distance himself from company – whether company then able to satisfy Threshold Condition 4 – jurisdiction of Tribunal to direct granting of permission in response to application in changed circumstances – reference allowed in part
Case: 029
Name of Decision: Rotton Park and Winson Green Credit Union Ltd (385kb)
SUPERVISORY NOTICE – Immediate effect – Application for suspension of immediate effect – Credit Union – Failure to maintain positive capital in breach of FSA Rule CRED 8.3.1 R – Notice required Credit Union to make no new loans, redemptions of shares or repayments of deposits – Whether requirements in Supervisory Notice should be suspended pending hearing of reference – No – Application dismissed
Case: 028
Name of Decision: Baldwin costs decision (151kb)
COSTS – FS&MA 2000 Sch 13 paragraph 13 – Test of reasonableness – Whether costs to be awarded under paragraph 13 (2) on ground that decision of FSA was unreasonable – No – Whether relevant conduct under paragraph 13(1) limited to conduct in the course of the proceedings – No – Whether costs to be awarded under paragraph 13 (1) on ground of unreasonable conduct prior to proceedings – No
Case: 027
Name of Decision: Allen Phillip Elliot (254kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – performance of – prohibition order – whether Applicant a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to regulated activities carried on by an authorised person – no – whether the Authority had power to make a prohibition order – yes – reference determined in favour of the Authority – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s 56
Case: 026
Name of Decision: (1)Timothy Edward Baldwin (2)WRT Investments Limited (216kb)
Case: 025
Name of Decision: Jonathan Milroy Townrow (200kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Performance – Prohibition Order – Fit and proper person – Failure to reply to enquiries from Regulator – Trading while not authorised on account of dissolution of partnership – Failure to conduct proper pensions review – Non–payment of redress to customers – Trading without professional indemnity cover – Failure to make proper disclosure in application for approval – Whether applicant not a fit and proper person to perform functions relating to regulated activities – Reference dismissed – FSMA 2000 s 32 – FSMA 2000 s 56 PRACTICE – guidance on form of chronology – guidance on core bundle
Case: 024
Name of Decision: Theophilus Folagbade Sonaike (119kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Variation of permission – Conviction of Applicant for offences involving dishonesty – Applicant failed to notify arrest, charge and conviction in questionnaires issued by Authority – Removal of all regulated activities – Cancellation of permission – Reference dismissed
Case: 023
Name of Decision: John Suter Associates (92kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Refusal of application – Threshold Condition 5 – Fit and proper person – General insurance business – Application (HSF 2) by Applicants failed to disclose material facts – Failure to cooperate with Regulator – Whether Applicant a fit and proper person – No – Reference dismissed
Case: 022
Name of Decision: Greenfields Financial Managment Limited (23kb)
PERMISSION TO CARRY ON REGULATED ACTIVITIES – application at the request of an authorised person to vary a permission – application refused – refusal referred to Tribunal – reference unopposed – reference determined without an oral hearing – Respondent directed to set aside its refusal and to process the application in the normal way – Financial Services and Markets Tribunals Rules 2001 Rules 14(3)(a)and 16(2)
Case: 021
Name of Decision: Prominence Technolgy Limited (43kb)
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION: applicaiton for approval of named officer to perform all controlled functions – named officer considered not to be fit and proper – applications rejected – sole issue whether named officer fit and proper since if not, threshold conditions 4 and 5 not satisfied – named officer's antecedent history – whether indicative that he is not fit and proper – failure to disclose antecedent history – wheather indicative of lack of candour – tribunal not satisfied on evidence that named officer fit and proper – Authority's decision upheld
Case: 020
Name of Decision: Sir Philip Watts (196kb)
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – market abuse – breach of listing rules – preliminary hearing – third party rights – section 393 FSMA – identification of third party – prejudice to third party – test to be applied
Case: 019
Name of Decision: Theophilus Folagbade Sonaike trading as F T Insurance Services (146kb)
Extension of Time – reference notice filed one day out of time – whether time to be extended – interests of justice – extension granted
Supervisory Notice – whether appropriate to suspend effect of notice pending hearing of reference – notice based on conviction for dishonesty – suspension inappropriate and application refused
Register – whether details of reference to be excluded from register – no grounds for exclusion made out – application refused
Case: 018
Name of Decision: Dr Albert Alphonso Carlyle Waite (209kb)
Regulated Activity – Chairman of Credit Union – Prohibition Notice – Fit and proper person – Chairman failing to disclose interest in transaction entered into by Credit Union and preferring own interest to that of credit Union – Credit Union suffersing loss – Statements of Principle 1 and 2 – Reference dismissed – Prohibition Order should issue
Case: 017
Name of Decision: Allen Philip Elliott (47kb)
Preliminary Issue – Applicant prohibited from performing any function in relation to regulated activities because it appeared to the Authority that he was not a fit and proper person – Applicant had been found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal who ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors – whether the findings of that Tribunal could be relied upon by the Authority in this reference without the need to re–prove each and every allegation – yes– preliminary issue determined in favour of the Authority – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s 56
Case: 016
Name of Decision: Rajiv Khungar (34kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Refusal of application – Threshold Condition 5 – Fit and proper person – Mortgage business – Second Applicant had been bankrupt in 1991 – Second Applicant had been investigated and warned in 1999 for infringement of regulated activities – Application by First and Second Applicants did not disclose those facts – Whether second Applicant a fit and proper person – No – Threshold Condition 4 – Whether adequate resources – No – Reference dismissed
Case: 015
Name of Decision: Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd (524kb)
Case:014
Name of Decision: Glenbow Financial Management Ltd (121kb)
Reference of refusal by F.S.A to approve applicants onus of proof – threshold conditions – fit and proper – non disclosure – prospect of prudent management.
Case: 013
Name of Decision: Shafquat Rajah (34kb)
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Permission – Refusal of application – Threshold Conditions 4 and 5 – Judgements entered against Applicant in 2003 and 2004 – Applicant failed to disclose judgement debts when submitting HSF2 form – Whether Tribunal satisfied as to Applicant's suitability – No – Whether Tribunal satisfied as to Applicant's financial resources – No– Reference dismissed – FSMA s 41(2)
Case: 012
Name of Decision: Arif Mohammed (222kb)
FSMA: MARKET ABUSE – restrictions on share dealing by an auditor – expert evidence – misuse of information – qualifying investments – information not generally available to those using the market – "based on" – relevant information – failure to observe reasonably expected standard of behaviour – penalty
Case: 011
Name of Decision: Legal & General Assurance Society Limited (971kb)
Case: 010
Name of Decision: Paul Davidson (190kb)
Reasons for directions application for a costs order in respect of the previous hearing – allowed in part – application for a direction that certain questions be determined at a preliminary hearing – allowed in part – application for directions requiring the Respondent to provide further information and to file further documents and for associated directions – dismissed – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Sch 13 para 13 – Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 SI 2001 No. 2476 Rules 10(1)(f) and (g); 13(1); and 21
Case: 009
Name of Decision: Ernest Thomas Rayner & John Robert Townsend (313kb)
Case: 008
Name of Decision: David Thomas (142kb)
PERFORMANCE OF REGULATED ACTIVITIES – Respondent's refusal to approve performance by Applicant of controlled functions – three preliminary issues – whether Respondent in breach of time limit in section 61(3) – yes – whether that made the warning notice and the decision notice void – no – whether the fact that the Respondent has appointed investigators in respect of the Applicant are grounds sufficient in themselves for a conclusion that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person – no – reference not yet determined – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ss 61, 133 and 168
Case: 007
Name of Decision: Geoffrey Alan Hoodless & Sean Michael Blackwell (95kb)
WITHDRAWAL OF APPROVAL – fit and proper test – applicants carrying out controlled functions – first applicant the senior executive officer of stockbrokers with controlled functions as investment adviser and manager – second applicant the chief executive officer with controlled function as investment adviser – stockbrokers placing shares in company quoted on AIM – shortfall – public announcement indicating complete placing – non–disclosure of shortfall to SFA or to AIM team –attempted share support by 2nd applicant – FSA investigation – whether lack of due skill, care and diligence in failing to notify AIM team and seek guidance breached SFA Principle 1 (integrity and fair dealing) or Principle 3 (market conduct) – no – whether attempted support of price of shares in client company in breach of Principles 1 and 3 – yes – whether applicants guilty of failing to cooperate with regulator – yes, but only in limited respects – whether applicants' conduct operated to the detriment of consumers and to confidenc e in the financial system – no – directions that decision notices be read in accordance with the tribunal's findings – FSMA 2000 s 63(1) – FSA Handbook "Fit and Proper Test for Approved Persons" – SFA Statements of Principle
Case: 006
Name of Decision: Eurosure Investment Services Limited (93kb)
SUPERVISORY NOTICE – variation of Part IV permission by removal of all regulated activities with effect from 9 September 2003 – reason for Notice being breach of threshold condition 4 (adequate resources) – Applicant without professional indemnity insurance cover – application for a direction to suspend effect of Notice until reference disposed of – whether Tribunal satisfied that such a direction would not prejudice the interests of consumers – no – whether necessary for Notice to take effect on 9 September 2003 – yes – whether removal of all regulated activities proportionate to the concerns being addressed by the Notice – yes – application dismissed – FS&MT Rules 2001 SI 2001 No. 2476 Rule 10(1)(e) and Rule 10(6)
Case: 005
Name of Decision: HPA (45kb)
SUPERVISORY NOTICE – Suspension of immediate effect – Variation of Part IV permission – Threshold Condition No.4 – Failure of Applicant to maintain PII – Whether Supervisory Notice varying permission should be suspended pending hearing of reference – No – FS&MT Rules 2001 No.2476 r.11(1)(e)
Case: 004
Name of Decision: Gordon Piggott (56kb)
DISCIPLINARY POWERS – amount of penalty determined by Interim Tribunal – whether fresh evidence has come to light about ability to pay – whether determination of Interim Tribunal justified in the light of the fresh evidence – whether penalty should be reduced – public censure in the alternative – matter remitted to Authority with directions – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ss 66(3), 133 and 426 – 428 – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Partly Completed Procedures) Order 2001 SI 2001 No 3592 Art 62
Case: 003
Name of Decision: Ian Douglas Cox (33kb)
Case: 002
Name of Decision: Eurolife Assurance Company Ltd (Case 002) (26kb)
Procedure – Withdrawal of reference – Permission of the Tribunal – Applicant submits letter purporting to withdraw reference notice lodged after case called on for adjourned hearing but before Authority's opening – Whether withdrawn before the hearing of the reference – Yes – Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 (SI 2001/2476 r.14(1))
Case: 001
Name of Decision: Eurolife Assurance Company Ltd (Case 001) (69kb)
PROCEDURE – Public or private hearing – Application for hearing of reference to be wholly in private – Whether necessary having regard to possible unfairness to Applicants – No – Whether necessary having regard to possible prejudice to consumers – No – Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001 (SI 2001/2476)
