Davidson and Tatham v Financial Services Authority [2006] UKFSM FSM031 (16 May 2006)

Davidson and Tatham v Financial Services Authority [2006] UKFSM FSM031 (16 May 2006)

The Tribunal found that neither Mr Davidson nor Mr Tatham engaged in market abuse as defined by FSMA 2000 s.118. The evidence did not support the existence of an agreement or scheme to create a false or misleading impression of demand for Cyprotex shares. The Tribunal also found that Mr Tatham was not in breach of Principles 2 or 3, and that penalties should not have been imposed. Even if penalties were appropriate, the amounts imposed were excessive.

Citation
[2006] UKFSM FSM031
Parties
First Applicant: Paul Davidson; Second Applicant: Ashley Tatham; Respondent: Financial Services Authority
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Reference of Decision Notice (financial Services and Markets Tribunal) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
References determined in favour of the Applicants.
Legal Topics
Market Abuse, Spread Betting, Contracts for Differences, AIM Listing, Regulatory Penalties, Approved Persons Conduct
Financial Services Law Market Regulation Market Abuse Spread Betting Contracts for Differences AIM Listing Regulatory Penalties Approved Persons Conduct

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

Parties

Paul Davidson

First Applicant

Ashley Tatham

Second Applicant

Financial Services Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reference of Decision Notice (financial Services and Markets Tribunal) / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants engaged in market abuse under FSMA 2000 section 118
  2. 2 Whether penalties should have been imposed under FSMA 2000 section 123
  3. 3 Whether the amounts of the penalties were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that neither Mr Davidson nor Mr Tatham engaged in market abuse as defined by FSMA 2000 s.118. The evidence did not support the existence of an agreement or scheme to create a false or misleading impression of demand for Cyprotex shares. The Tribunal also found that Mr Tatham was not in breach of Principles 2 or 3, and that penalties should not have been imposed. Even if penalties were appropriate, the amounts imposed were excessive.

Court Disposition

References determined in favour of the Applicants.

Orders

  • No finding of market abuse against Mr Davidson or Mr Tatham.
  • No penalties to be imposed on Mr Davidson or Mr Tatham.