Click the case name for better results:

Canada Inc Swift Trade Inc and Peter Beck v Financial Services Authority: UTTC 23 Jan 2013

UTTC MARKET ABUSE – share price manipulation – whether demonstrate- yes – FSMA s 118 – whether entering into contracts for difference knowing counterparty would hedge by placing orders for stocks amounts to behaviour ‘in relation to’ qualifying investments – yes- whether open to FSA to take action against dissolved Canadian corporation regulated in Canada … Continue reading Canada Inc Swift Trade Inc and Peter Beck v Financial Services Authority: UTTC 23 Jan 2013

Canada Inc Swift Trade Inc and Peter Beck v Financial Services Authority; UTTC 23 Jan 2013

References: [2013] UKUT B2 (TCC) Links: Bailii UTTC MARKET ABUSE – share price manipulation – whether demonstrate- yes – FSMA s 118 – whether entering into contracts for difference knowing counterparty would hedge by placing orders for stocks amounts to behaviour ‘in relation to’ qualifying investments – yes- whether open to FSA to take action … Continue reading Canada Inc Swift Trade Inc and Peter Beck v Financial Services Authority; UTTC 23 Jan 2013

Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited: CA 21 Jul 1998

Where an action had been begun on basis of allegations of negligence and breach of trust, new allegations of fraud where quite separate new causes of claim, and went beyond amendments and were disallowed outside the relevant limitation period. Sections 23 and 36 and the absence of express statutory mention in the 1980 Act of … Continue reading Paragon Finance Plc (Formerly Known As National Home Loans Corporation Plc v D B Thakerar and Co (a Firm); Ranga and Co (a Firm) and Sterling Financial Services Limited: CA 21 Jul 1998

Clark and Another v In Focus Asset Management and Tax Solutions Ltd and Another: CA 14 Feb 2014

The doctrine of res judicata was applicable to prevent a complainant who had once accepted an award from the Financial Ombudsman Service from starting additional legal proceedings to pursue complaints already been submitted to the ombudsman and on which the ombudsman had decided. Section 228(5) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 did not … Continue reading Clark and Another v In Focus Asset Management and Tax Solutions Ltd and Another: CA 14 Feb 2014

Jabre and Financial Services Authority (Decision on Market Abuse) v Financial Services Authority: FSMT 10 Jul 2006

FSMT 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 … Continue reading Jabre and Financial Services Authority (Decision on Market Abuse) v Financial Services Authority: FSMT 10 Jul 2006

Financial Services Authority v Fradley and Woodward: CA 23 Nov 2005

The defendant appealed against a finding that the pooled betting scheme they operated was governed by the Act. Held: Whether such an arrangement amounted to a collective investment scheme so as to be regulated was first a question of fact as to whether there was a single set of arrangements so as to constitute a … Continue reading Financial Services Authority v Fradley and Woodward: CA 23 Nov 2005

David John Hobbs v Financial Services Authority – FS/2010/0024: UTTC 22 Nov 2012

UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – FSMA s 123 – financial penalty – FSMA s 118(5) – whether conduct of Applicant constituted market abuse – FSMA s 56 – prohibition order – whether Applicant a fit and proper person Citations: [2012] UKUT B25 (TCC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 56 123 118(5) Jurisdiction: … Continue reading David John Hobbs v Financial Services Authority – FS/2010/0024: UTTC 22 Nov 2012

Rollins, Regina v: CACD 9 Oct 2009

The court was asked whether the Financial Services Authority had itself the power to prosecute offences under the 2002 Act. The defence said that the FSA’s powers were limited to offences under the 2000 Act. The FSA relied on its common law power to bring a prosecution. Held: the FSA was not a statutory body, … Continue reading Rollins, Regina v: CACD 9 Oct 2009