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: [2014] UKUT B2 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Herrington UTJ
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – 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 failure to satisfy Threshold Conditions-Respondent not satisfied that Applicant a fit and proper person because in its opinion Applicant conducting his affairs in an inappropriate matter and acted with a lack of integrity – whether Tribunal satisfied that the 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 – Application dismissed – Rule5(5) The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008

References: [2014] UKUT 335 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC FINANCIAL SERVICES – whether applicant guilty of misconduct – breach of Statement of Principle 1 – dishonesty and lack of integrity – whether applicant is a fit and proper person – withdrawal of approval to carry out approved functions – FSMA, s 63 – prohibition order – s 56 – financial penalty – s 66

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