header-logo header-logo

17 January 2014
Issue: 7590 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Financial services

Hobbs v Financial Conduct Authority [2014] All ER (D) 42 (Jan)

In determining whether to make a prohibition order, the Financial Conduct Authority had to consider: (a) the need to maintain the soundness of the UK financial system; (b) the need to protect consumers from the activities of unfit and improper persons in relation to regulated activities; and (c) achieving credible deterrence against conduct which was unfit and improper (as a means of advancing its operational objectives). Each case should be determined according to its own facts and circumstances. 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten Muchin Rosenman—Charlotte Hill

Katten strengthens financial markets and funds group in London

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James—Keith Cundall & Lee Hart

Hugh James expands national Serious Injury team with two new Partners

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW—Rémi Ducloyer

HFW continues Paris office growth with public law Partner hire

NEWS
The Court of Appeal's decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP has lifted months of uncertainty for Chartered Legal Executives while prompting a rethink of regulation and supervision
The assisted dying debate returns to Westminster as Lauren Edwards MP reintroduces legislation that stalled in the House of Lords last session despite clearing the Commons
A little-noticed provision of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has fundamentally expanded corporate criminal liability
Artificial intelligence is transforming legal practice, but careless reliance on it is creating growing professional risks
The law offers cohabiting couples surprisingly greater protection after one partner dies than when they separate during life
back-to-top-scroll