Financial services and markets tribunal turns down costs application from broker whom it had earlier found not to have engaged in market abuse
| Pages | 418-423 |
| Date | 01 October 2006 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980610711199 |
| Published date | 01 October 2006 |
| Author | Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMMENTARY
Financial services and markets
tribunal turns down costs
application from broker whom it
had earlier found not to have
engaged in market abuse
Joanna Gray
University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal
turned down a costs application from a broker it had earlier found not to have engaged in market
abuse.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper outlines the facts surrounding the decision.
Findings – The case drives home the importance of insurance against the costs of Tribunal
representation for key employees in the financial services industry at risk of FSA enforcement
proceedings.
Originality/value – The paper highlights the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal decision to
awarding costs.
Keywords Legal decisions,Tribunals
Paper type Viewpoint
(1) Timothy Edward Bald win (2) WRT Investments Lt d v. FSA (Case No.
FIN/2005/0011: Financial Services and Markets Tribunal: Andrew Bartlett QC,
NW Douch, TC Carter)
Date of judgment: 5 April 2006
Facts
The Financial Services and Markets Tribunal decision in the application further to
which this costs application and decision were made was noted in the last issue of
JFRC (see case comment entitled “Tribunal rejects FSA allegation of market abuse”
Volume 14(3) JFRC). For ease of reference the factual background to that earlier
Tribunal ruling on the substantive allegations against Mr Baldwin (the applicant) are
set out again here. The first applicant, Mr Baldwin, worked for Cannacord Capital
(Europe) Ltd as an equity salesman specialising in sales of smaller company securities
to institutional clients in the UK. His market experience spanned some 18 years and he
held approved person status for the controlled functions of “investment adviser” and
“customer trader”. The second applicant, WRT Investments Ltd, was a private
investment vehicle controlled and part owned by Mr Baldwin through which he
conducted a number of investment trades on his own account including those trades
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1358-1988.htm
JFRC
14,4
418
Journal of Financial Regulation and
Compliance
Vol. 14 No. 4, 2006
pp. 418-423
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1358-1988
DOI 10.1108/13581980610711199
To continue reading
Request your trial