Litaid Ltd v Financial Services Authority [2008] UKFSM FSM055 (10 January 2008)

Litaid Ltd v Financial Services Authority [2008] UKFSM FSM055 (10 January 2008)

The Applicant's persistent failure to obtain and maintain professional indemnity insurance and to submit RMARs on time, combined with its lack of co-operation with the Authority, demonstrated it did not satisfy threshold conditions 4 and 5 and breached Principle 11, justifying the cancellation of its Part IV permission.

Citation
[2008] UKFSM FSM055
Parties
Applicant: Litaid Limited; Authority: Financial Services Authority
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Regulatory Tribunal Reference / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
References rejected; permission cancelled
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance, Regulatory Compliance, Threshold Conditions, Retail Mediation Activities Return, Principles for Businesses
Financial Regulation Insurance Law Administrative Law Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulatory Compliance Threshold Conditions Retail Mediation Activities Return Principles for Businesses

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

Parties

Litaid Limited

Applicant

Financial Services Authority

Authority

Procedural Posture

Regulatory Tribunal Reference / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to obtain professional indemnity insurance (PII) and failure to submit Retail Mediation Activities Returns (RMAR) justified cancellation of Part IV permission
  2. 2 Whether failure to respond to the Authority constituted breach of Principle 11 (Relations with Regulators)
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant failed to satisfy threshold conditions 4 (Adequate Resources) and 5 (Suitability) under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's persistent failure to obtain and maintain professional indemnity insurance and to submit RMARs on time, combined with its lack of co-operation with the Authority, demonstrated it did not satisfy threshold conditions 4 and 5 and breached Principle 11, justifying the cancellation of its Part IV permission.

Court Disposition

References rejected; permission cancelled

Orders

  • The references are rejected.
  • The Applicant's Part IV permission is cancelled.