header-logo header-logo

19 July 2018 / Michel Reznik
Issue: 7802 / Categories: Features , Regulatory , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Financial Services Tribunal: for justice, for regulatory clarity (Pt 3)

nlj_7802_reznik

Michel Reznik negotiates the tightrope of financial regulation & concludes with regulatory clarity

  • A Financial Services Tribunal with jurisdiction to produce authoritative decisions on the effect of regulation would help eliminate regulatory uncertainty, reduce compliance costs and maintain the UK’s reputation as one of the best-regulated markets in the world.

Financial regulation, like the politics which underpins it, began a transformation in 2008. Richard Samuel, barrister at 3 Hare Court, in the latest of his trilogy of articles in the Capital Markets Law Journal , characterises the change in this way. Before that date, financial regulators investigated irregularities apparent in the market and penalised transgressions where they found harm. Since 2008, regulators have not waited for irregularities or harm; they now require absolute compliance with their rules and fine firms who fall short. An increasingly burdensome series of regulations and rule-books have therefore become all the more onerous for firms because of the unforgiving way in which they are now policed. Post-2008 politics has sustained

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll