header-logo header-logo

27 June 2013
Issue: 7566 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice—Hearing—Hearing in private

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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