The Financial Conduct Authority v Avacade Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1673 (Ch) (30 June 2020)

The Financial Conduct Authority v Avacade Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 1673 (Ch) (30 June 2020)

The court found that Avacade and AA carried on regulated activities without authorisation, made unauthorised financial promotions, and made false or misleading statements to consumers. The individual defendants (Craig Lummis, Lee Lummis, and Ray Fox) were knowingly concerned in the contraventions. The FCA was entitled to restitution orders against the defendants.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1673 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Financial Conduct Authority; First Defendant: Avacade Limited (In Liquidation) (trading as Avacade Investment Options); Second Defendant: Alexandra Associates (UK) Limited (trading as Avacade Future Solutions); Third Defendant: Craig Stanley Lummis; Fourth Defendant: Lee Edward Lummis; Fifth Defendant: Raymond George Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Financial Regulation / High Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Judgment for the FCA.
Legal Topics
Regulated Activities, Financial Promotions, False or Misleading Statements, Restitution, Knowingly Concerned Liability
Financial Regulation Securities Law Pensions Law Regulated Activities Financial Promotions False or Misleading Statements Restitution Knowingly Concerned Liability

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Conduct Authority

Claimant

Avacade Limited (In Liquidation) (trading as Avacade Investment Options)

First Defendant

Alexandra Associates (UK) Limited (trading as Avacade Future Solutions)

Second Defendant

Craig Stanley Lummis

Third Defendant

Lee Edward Lummis

Fourth Defendant

Raymond George Fox

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Financial Regulation / High Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants carried on regulated activities without authorisation in breach of FSMA s.19
  2. 2 Whether the defendants made unauthorised financial promotions contrary to FSMA s.21
  3. 3 Whether the defendants made false or misleading statements in contravention of FSMA s.397 and/or FSA 2012 s.89

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Avacade and AA carried on regulated activities without authorisation, made unauthorised financial promotions, and made false or misleading statements to consumers. The individual defendants (Craig Lummis, Lee Lummis, and Ray Fox) were knowingly concerned in the contraventions. The FCA was entitled to restitution orders against the defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Judgment for the FCA.

Orders

  • Declarations of contraventions of FSMA and FSA provisions by the defendants
  • Restitution orders against the defendants under FSMA s.382