Heather Moor And Edgecomb Ltd v Financial Services Authority, Court of Appeal - United Kingdom Financial Services and Markets Tribunals, July 01, 2008,  UKFSM FSM062
|Resolution Date:||July 01, 2008|
|Issuing Organization:||United Kingdom Financial Services and Markets Tribunals|
|Actores:||Heather Moor And Edgecomb Ltd v Financial Services Authority|
APPEALS FROM THE TRIBUNAL Application for permission Decision as to permission Whether appeal raises point of law Whether Tribunal considers appeal to have real prospect of success Whether any other compelling reason why appeal be heard Application refused FS&MT Rules 2001 r.24 FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS TRIBUNAL HEATHER, MOOR & EDGECOMB LIMITED Applicant - and - FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY The Authority (Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal) Tribunal: SIR STEPHEN OLIVER QC Sitting in Chambers in London on 1 July 2008 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008 2 DECISION
The decision of the Authority, referred by the Applicant to the Tribunal, was that the Applicant's Part IV Permission should be cancelled. The reason for the5 decision was that the Applicant had failed to pay "the Crofts' FOS Award", made in October 2003. On that basis the Authority could not be satisfied that the Applicant was a fit and proper person having regard to all the circumstances and the Applicant was therefore failing and likely to fail to satisfy Threshold Condition 5.
The Tribunal held that unless the Applicant paid the Crofts' FOS Award (plus interest) within 28 days, its Part IV Permission should be cancelled. The Tribunal's decision was released on 5 June 2008. On 17 June the Applicant applied, pursuant to rule 23(1) of the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal Rules 2001, for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 137(1) of the Financial Services and15 Markets Act 2000. The Tribunal's decision
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had failed since November 2004 to comply with "the Crofts' FOS Award". The Tribunal concluded that the outcome of20 "the Crofts Enforcement Action" (in which the Crofts had taken enforcement action before the County Court but had withdrawn their claim prior to any form of determination by the County Court) in no way displaced the Crofts' FOS Award and the Applicant's obligation to comply with it.
The Tribunal further decided that, on the assumption that there was no register and that the Crofts' FOS Award was not therefore entered on a register, the only consequence was that the Crofts' FOS Award was not enforceable at the instance of the Crofts. The Crofts' FOS Award nonetheless remained binding on the Applicant.
In the result, the Tribunal concluded, the appropriate action for the Authority to take was to cancel the Applicant's Part IV Permission on the grounds that the Applicant could not be...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL