Moneybrain Limited v The Financial Conduct Authority [2022] UKUT 00269 (TCC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Anne Redston |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] UKUT 00269 (TCC) |
| Subject Matter | 30 September 2022 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Published date | 07 December 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation: [2022] UKUT 00269 (TCC)
UT (Tax & Chancery) Case Number: UT-2022-000065
Upper Tribunal
(Tax and Chancery Chamber) Decided on the papers
PROCEDURE – Decision Notice issued by the Financial Conduct Authority – hearing to
decide whether to suspend effect of the Decision Notice – privacy application for publication of
the Tribunal decision to be delayed – separate application for recusal of judge, including
recusal from deciding the privacy application – recusal application refused
Before
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ANNE REDSTON
Between
MONEYBRAIN LIMITED
(RECUSAL APPLICATION) Applicant
and
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY
Respondent
This is the Tribunal’s decision on a recusal application made on 30 September 2022 by Jason
Mansell of Counsel, instructed by Withers LLP, on behalf of the Applicant.
2
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1. On 22 September 2022, I issued a judgment (“the Judgment”) refusing an application
made by Moneybrain Ltd (“Moneybrain”). On the day the Judgment was issued to the parties,
Moneybrain made a further application (“the Privacy Application”) that publication of the
Judgment be delayed.
2. Before the Privacy Application was decided, Moneybrain made a further application that
I recuse myself from deciding the Privacy Application and from future involvement in
Moneybrain’s case (“the Recusal Application”).
3. This decision concerns the Recusal Application. For the reasons set out below, it is
refused. A separate decision on the Privacy Application will be issued in due course.
ORAL HEARING?
4. Moneybrain applied for the Recusal Application to be decided at an oral hearing. In
deciding whether or not to direct an oral hearing, I considered and applied the overriding
objective at Rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (“the Tribunal
Rules”), which provides:
“(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Upper Tribunal
to deal with cases fairly and justly.
(2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes—
(a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the
importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated
costs and the resources of the parties;
(b) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the
proceedings;
(c) ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to
participate fully in the proceedings;
(d) using any special expertise of the Upper Tribunal effectively; and
(e) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of
the issues.
(3) The Upper Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective
when it—
(a) exercises any power under these Rules; or
(b) interprets any rule or practice direction.”
5. Dealing with a case “fairly and justly” engages not only the parties, but also other
Tribunal users. In Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v Fergies Properties [2014] EWCA Civ 506
Davis LJ (with whom Sullivan LJ and Laws LJ agreed) said at [28] that the purpose of the
Jackson reforms was:
“to change a litigation culture…with a view to protecting the wider interests
of justice including the interests of other court users: who themselves stand to
be affected in the progress of their own cases by satellite litigation, delays and
adjournments occurring in other cases by reason of non-compliance.”
6. I decided that it was not in the interests of justice to hold an oral hearing of the Recusal
Application, for the following reasons:
To continue reading
Request your trial