References: [2013] UKUT B10 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC PENSIONS REGULATOR – Financial support direction – procedure – whether Regulator and Trustee should be barred from pursuing parts of their pleaded cases on grounds that to do so would amount to an abuse of the Upper Tribunal’s Procedure and breach of the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules – no – whether disclosure of documents should be directed in relation to certain matters pleaded by the Targets in reply to the Regulator’s Statement of Case – yes in part – whether the Regulator should disclose documents relating to its decision not to seek a financial support direction against Joint Venture Partner of one of the Targets – no

References: [2013] UKUT B9 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – alleged breaches of Principle 7 (communication of information) and Principle 9 (suitability of advice) of Principles for Businesses and related Conduct of Business Rules in relation to Geared Traded Endowment Policies – whether Authority and Tribunal have jurisdiction – yes – whether Applicant breached Principles and COB Rules – yes – whether financial penalty appropriate – yes – amount of penalty confirmed – reference dismissed

References: [2014] UKUT 348 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Bishopp TJ
UTTC PROHIBITION – finding in High Court litigation that applicant had knowingly tendered false evidence – whether that finding could be undermined – no – production to the Authority by applicant of redacted and partial copy of High Court judgment to discredit another while concealing criticism of himself – whether applicant fit and proper – no – prohibition upheld

References: [2013] UKUT B5 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – Application to amend Statement of Case and for directions – Whether amendments relate to subject-matter of reference – yes – application granted

References: [2013] UKUT B4 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
FINANCIAL SERVICES – general insurance broker – whether Applicant in breach of Statements of Principle 1 and 4 – standard of proof – forged documentation – failure to effect insurance – failure to keep clients informed of identity of insurer – failure to deal with the Authority in an appropriate, open and cooperative way – action under s 66 FSMA – whether prevented by limitation – construction of s 66(4), (5) – penalty – s 66(3) – prohibition order – s 56 FSMA’

References: [2012] UKUT B5 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Unauthorised person – prohibition order – not to perform any function in relation to regulated activities – prohibition order should be issued

References: [2011] UKUT B4 (FS)
Links: Bailii
UTTC MARKET ABUSE – Conditions in FSMA s118(2) – Whether applicant an insider within s118B(e) – Yes – Whether information not generally available – Yes – Whether information of a precise nature within meaning of s118C(2) – Yes – Whether information likely to have a significant effect on price within meaning of s118C(6) – Yes – Defence under s123(2)(a) of belief on reasonable grounds that not market abuse – Defence not made out – Penalty to be imposed – Whether applicant fit and proper – No – Prohibition.

References: [2012] EWHC B4 (Mercantile)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Simon Brown QC
The claimant provided facilities for trading in financial derivatives, and had acted for the defendants. It now sought to recover substantial losses incurred on their accounts. The defendants denied that the sums were payable, on the basis that the claimant had not obtained the necessary client agreements required by the claimant’s regulator.

References: [2015] UKUT 13 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – investment management – management of conflicts of interest – compliance monitoring – separation of decision making within firm acting for different customers – whether property of open ended investment companies managed with the aim of providing a prudent spread of risk as regards liquidity – Principles 2, 3, 8 in respect of alleged breaches by firm and Statements of Principle 6 and 7 in respect of alleged breaches by individual Applicants
Management of conflicts of interest in respect of four specific transactions – whether Applicants acted without integrity – Principle 1 in respect of alleged breaches by firm and Statement of Principle 1 in respect of alleged breaches by individual Applicants Financial penalty and public censure – whether action against individual Applicants prevented by limitation – s66(4), (5) FSMA – appropriate level of penalty – ss66(3), 205 FSMA
Fitness and properness of individuals – withdrawal of approvals – prohibition orders – ss56 and 63 FSMA

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 against dissolved Canadian corporation regulated in Canada and with no place of business in United Kingdom – yes- scale of penalty- reference dismissed.
Statutes: Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 118

References: [2013] UKUT 140 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC PROHIBITION ORDER – FSMA s56 -Whether applicant fit and proper

References: [2014] UKUT 214 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – withdrawal of approval and prohibition of approved person – whether Applicant made false and misleading representations in mortgage applications – yes – whether Applicant failed to deal with the Authority in open and co-operative manner – yes – whether Applicant dishonest – no – whether Applicant lacked integrity – yes – whether Applicant fit and proper person – no – prohibition from carrying out any function confirmed – reference dismissed