Order against solicitors in defence of Financial Services proceedings were to stand. The powers conferred by s.6(2) and 61(1) were wide and should not be cut down judicially, and the two remedies might overlap. The power found in s.61(1) had two preconditions to be satisfied before it could be exercised, namely (1) a relevant contravention … Continue reading Securities and Investments Board v Pantell and Others (No 2): CA 24 Jun 1992

The respondents were a firm of solicitors who had acted for a client who carried on an unauthorised investment scheme. The Authority sought to recover losses from them.
Held: The solicitors had been concerned in the investment business, and . .