header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 March 2013
Issue: 7551 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Financial services—Financial Services Authority—Injunctions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Financial Services Authority v Sinaloa Gold plc and others (Barclays Bank plc intervening) [2013] UKSC 11, [2013] All ER (D) 320 (Feb)

Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption SCJJ, 27 Feb 2013

There is no general rule that an authority such as the FSA, acting pursuant to a public law duty, should be required to give a cross-undertaking in respect of losses incurred by third parties.

Nicholas Vineall QC, James Purchas & Adam Temple (instructed by the Financial Services Authority Legal Department) for the FSA. Richard Handyside QC and Tamara Oppenheimer (instructed by Barclays Bank plc Legal Services) for the bank. The defendants did not appear and were not represented.

Proceedings were issued by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) against three defendants, on the basis that: (i) the first defendant company was promoting the sale of shares without being authorised to do so and without an approved prospectus, contrary to ss 21 and 85 of the Financial Services and Markets

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll