Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd, R (on the application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd

Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd, R (on the application of) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd

The Ombudsman did not err in law in his interpretation of the FCA Handbook provisions on commission disclosure and discretionary commission arrangements; the finding of breach of Principles 6, 7, and 8 was open to him; the attribution of Arnold Clark’s conduct to Clydesdale under section 56(1)(b) and (2) of the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd; Defendant: Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd; Interested Party: Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited; Interested Party: Jenna Lewis; Interested Party: Financial Conduct Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Commission, Fairness in Consumer Credit, Judicial Review of Ombudsman Decisions, Agency Under Consumer Credit Act, Compensation for Financial Loss
Financial Services Regulation Consumer Protection Administrative Law Disclosure of Commission Fairness in Consumer Credit Judicial Review of Ombudsman Decisions Agency Under Consumer Credit Act Compensation for Financial Loss

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd

Claimant

Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd

Defendant

Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited

Interested Party

Jenna Lewis

Interested Party

Financial Conduct Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ombudsman misinterpreted FCA Handbook provisions on commission disclosure and discretionary commission arrangements
  2. 2 Whether the Ombudsman was correct to find a breach of Principles 6, 7, and 8 of the FCA Handbook
  3. 3 Whether the Ombudsman erred in law in finding agency under section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombudsman did not err in law in his interpretation of the FCA Handbook provisions on commission disclosure and discretionary commission arrangements; the finding of breach of Principles 6, 7, and 8 was open to him; the attribution of Arnold Clark’s conduct to Clydesdale under section 56(1)(b) and (2) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was correct; and the compensation award was not irrational. There was no procedural unfairness. All grounds of challenge are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted on all grounds but claim dismissed on the merits
  • Application to adduce expert evidence refused