ABS Financial Planning Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Financial Services Authority & Anor

ABS Financial Planning Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Financial Services Authority & Anor

The defendant did not err in law or act irrationally in allocating the Keydata levy to the D2 investment intermediation sub-class, as Keydata's activities giving rise to the claims were ancillary to regulated activities within D2 and did not involve the exercise of discretion required for 'managing investments' under D1. The defendant's consultation process, though not perfect, was adequate and not procedurally unfair in the circumstances.

Parties
Claimant: ABS Financial Planning Ltd and others; Defendant: Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd; Interested Party: Financial Services Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Financial Services Compensation, Procedural Fairness, Consultation Duty
Administrative Law Financial Services Regulation Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Financial Services Compensation Procedural Fairness Consultation Duty

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABS Financial Planning Ltd and others

Claimant

Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd

Defendant

Financial Services Authority

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd erred in law or acted irrationally in allocating the Keydata levy to the investment intermediation (D2) sub-class rather than the fund management (D1) sub-class
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to consult properly before imposing the levy

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not err in law or act irrationally in allocating the Keydata levy to the D2 investment intermediation sub-class, as Keydata's activities giving rise to the claims were ancillary to regulated activities within D2 and did not involve the exercise of discretion required for 'managing investments' under D1. The defendant's consultation process, though not perfect, was adequate and not procedurally unfair in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.