header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 June 2013
Issue: 7566 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice—Hearing—Hearing in private

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

R (on the application of Willford) v Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 674, [2013] All ER (D) 115 (Jun)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lord Justice Moore-Bick, Lady Justice Black and Sir Malcolm Pill, 13 Jun 2013

A claimant seeking judicial review of a decision notice issued by the Financial Services Authority was not entitled to anonymity.

Dinah Rose QC & Ben Jaffey (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the claimant. Michael Brindle QC & Rupert Allen (instructed by the Financial Services Authority) for the defendant.

The claimant was the group finance director of Bradford & Bingley plc. The defendant was the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the former statutory regulator of the financial services industry. In March 2010, the defendant issued a decision notice to the claimant and imposed a penalty for failing to comply with principles laid down by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000). The claimant issued a claim for judicial review on the grounds that the defendant had failed to give adequate reasons for issuing the

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll