Financial Conduct Authority v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 1125 (02 October 2024)

Financial Conduct Authority v BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 1125 (02 October 2024)

The Court of Appeal held that the FCA's power under s.55L FSMA to impose a single-firm redress requirement is not constrained by the four conditions (loss, causation, duty, actionability) applicable to multi-firm consumer redress schemes under s.404 and s.404F(7). The power derives from s.55L and is subject only to the statutory requirements in Part 4A and public law principles. The Upper Tribunal erred in striking out the FCA's redress case and in holding that s.404F(7) limited the FCA's power under s.55L.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1125
Parties
Appellant/cross Respondent: The Financial Conduct Authority; Respondent/cross Appellant: BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
FCA Powers, FSMA 2000, Redress Schemes, Statutory Interpretation, Consumer Protection, Permission Requirements
Financial Regulation Administrative Law FCA Powers FSMA 2000 Redress Schemes Statutory Interpretation Consumer Protection Permission Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Conduct Authority

Appellant/cross Respondent

BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP

Respondent/cross Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Upper Tribunal (tax and Chancery Chamber) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the FCA's power under s.55L FSMA to impose a single-firm redress requirement is constrained by the conditions applicable to multi-firm consumer redress schemes under s.404 and s.404F(7) FSMA, including loss, causation, duty, and actionability.
  2. 2 Whether the Upper Tribunal erred in striking out the FCA's case for redress and in refusing certain amendments to the FCA's Statement of Case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the FCA's power under s.55L FSMA to impose a single-firm redress requirement is not constrained by the four conditions (loss, causation, duty, actionability) applicable to multi-firm consumer redress schemes under s.404 and s.404F(7). The power derives from s.55L and is subject only to the statutory requirements in Part 4A and public law principles. The Upper Tribunal erred in striking out the FCA's redress case and in holding that s.404F(7) limited the FCA's power under s.55L.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The FCA's appeal is allowed; the Upper Tribunal's decision to strike out the FCA's redress case is set aside.
  • BCMUK's cross-appeal is dismissed.