Davies & Ors v Financial Services Authority

Davies & Ors v Financial Services Authority

The Financial Services Authority was entitled to use its powers under section 56 to propose prohibition orders based on past misconduct, even though disciplinary proceedings under section 66 were time-barred. The statutory scheme provides an adequate alternative remedy through representations to the Authority and reference to the Tribunal, making judicial review inappropriate. The grounds for judicial review were unarguable.

Parties
Appellants: Vivian John Davies & Ors; Respondent: The Financial Services Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Regulatory Powers, Statutory Interpretation, Abuse of Process
Administrative Law Financial Regulation Judicial Review Regulatory Powers Statutory Interpretation Abuse of Process

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivian John Davies & Ors

Appellants

The Financial Services Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Financial Services Authority could lawfully use its power under section 56 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to issue prohibition orders when disciplinary proceedings under section 66 were time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the use of section 56 powers for alleged past misconduct constitutes an abuse of process or is ultra vires
  3. 3 Whether judicial review is available or appropriate given the statutory scheme for appeals to the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The Financial Services Authority was entitled to use its powers under section 56 to propose prohibition orders based on past misconduct, even though disciplinary proceedings under section 66 were time-barred. The statutory scheme provides an adequate alternative remedy through representations to the Authority and reference to the Tribunal, making judicial review inappropriate. The grounds for judicial review were unarguable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants to pay the costs of the respondent, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed
  • Permission to appeal refused