Appeal by the Authority against a decision by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) deciding, as a preliminary issue determined in accordance with Rule 5(3)(e) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, that the respondent to this appeal, Mr Macris was identified in certain notices given by the Authority on 18 September 2013 to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Held: The FCA’s appeal failed. When lookig to see whether, for section 393 of the Act, the ‘matters’ in a notice issued by the Authority as against a bank had ‘identified’ a person who was not themselves directly named, the court was to use a simple and objective test was to be applied.
The principles to b applied could be borrowed from the law of defamation.
Longmore, Patten, Gloster LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 490, [2015] WLR(D) 219, [2015] Bus LR 1141
Bailii, WLRD, WLRD
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 393
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hulton and Co v Jones HL 6-Dec-1909
The defendant newspaper published an article describing the attendance at a motor race at Dieppe. It described the antics, intending to refer to a fictitious person, of one Artemus Jones, and said of him that he was ‘with a woman who is not his . .
At UTTC – Macris v The Financial Conduct Authority UTTC 10-Apr-2014
FINANCIAL SERVICES – preliminary hearing – third party rights – s 393 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – whether applicant identified in notice – yes . .
Cited by:
At CA – Financial Conduct Authority v Macris SC 22-Mar-2017
The claimant had complained that the appellant Authority had made public a penalty imposed on a former employer but implicating him without he being first given an opportunity to make representations. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.546871