Financial Services Authority v Matthews & Anor [2004] EWHC 2966 (Ch) (21 December 2004)

Financial Services Authority v Matthews & Anor [2004] EWHC 2966 (Ch) (21 December 2004)

The defendants, as members of the PIA, were contractually bound by its rules and the Ombudsman Awards. Failure to comply with the Awards constitutes a contravention of a relevant requirement under section 382 FSMA 2000. No valid challenge was mounted within the time limits, and human rights arguments do not apply...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2966 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Financial Services Authority; Defendant: William Matthews; Defendant: Patricia Janet Matthews
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
judgment for claimant
Legal Topics
Compensation for Pension Misselling, Enforcement of Ombudsman Awards, Judicial Review, Human Rights (article 6)
Financial Regulation Contract Law Administrative Law Compensation for Pension Misselling Enforcement of Ombudsman Awards Judicial Review Human Rights (article 6)

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Financial Services Authority

Claimant

William Matthews

Defendant

Patricia Janet Matthews

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with PIA Ombudsman Awards constitutes contravention of a relevant requirement under section 382 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether compensation should be awarded on a reinstatement or top up basis
  3. 3 Whether the defendants can challenge the validity of the Awards or raise human rights arguments

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, as members of the PIA, were contractually bound by its rules and the Ombudsman Awards. Failure to comply with the Awards constitutes a contravention of a relevant requirement under section 382 FSMA 2000. No valid challenge was mounted within the time limits, and human rights arguments do not apply retrospectively. Compensation is awarded on a top up basis, not reinstatement, due to the defendants' financial circumstances and the disproportionate cost of reinstatement.

Court Disposition

judgment for claimant

Orders

  • Declaration that defendants contravened a relevant requirement
  • Order that defendants pay compensation to FSA for benefit of Mr Merriman (£52,472.23) and Mr Bayliss (£29,876.97)