Financial Services Authority v Fradley & Woodward [2005] EWCA Civ 1183 (23 November 2005)

Financial Services Authority v Fradley & Woodward [2005] EWCA Civ 1183 (23 November 2005)

The appeal was allowed in part because there was a triable issue as to whether 147 and TBPS operated a joint scheme constituting a collective investment scheme under FSMA; the judge's summary judgment on this point could not stand without full investigation of the facts. However, if the scheme was a CIS, participants did not have day-to-day control, and the scheme was operated in the UK even after Mr Fradley moved to Ireland.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1183
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Financial Services Authority; Respondents/appellant: Fradley & Woodward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Mr Fradley's appeal allowed in part; FSA's appeal dismissed to the extent indicated.
Legal Topics
Collective Investment Schemes, Authorisation of Investment Activities, Financial Promotion, Jurisdiction of Financial Services Authority
Financial Services Law Regulatory Law Collective Investment Schemes Authorisation of Investment Activities Financial Promotion Jurisdiction of Financial Services Authority

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Financial Services Authority

Appellant/respondent

Fradley & Woodward

Respondents/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tipping and bet placement services constituted a collective investment scheme under section 235 of FSMA
  2. 2 Whether participants had day-to-day control over their contributions
  3. 3 Whether the scheme was operated in the UK after Mr Fradley moved to Ireland

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because there was a triable issue as to whether 147 and TBPS operated a joint scheme constituting a collective investment scheme under FSMA; the judge's summary judgment on this point could not stand without full investigation of the facts. However, if the scheme was a CIS, participants did not have day-to-day control, and the scheme was operated in the UK even after Mr Fradley moved to Ireland.

Court Disposition

Mr Fradley's appeal allowed in part; FSA's appeal dismissed to the extent indicated.

Orders

  • Parties to lodge written submissions on costs.
  • FSA to draw up a minute of order to be agreed with Mr Fradley and lodged with the Court.