R v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd, ex parte Mordens Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 July 1990 |
| Date | 06 July 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice McCullough
Company - futures brokers association - discovery order
A commissioner appointed to hear an appeal against a refusal to admit a company of futures brokers to a self-regulating body acted reasonably where he refused to make an order for discovery against that self-regulating body for certain information in relation to existing members of that body if he had no agreed or statutory powers to make an enforceable order for such discovery.
Mr Justice McCullough so held in the Queen's Bench Division when refusing an interlocutory application by Mordens Ltd for judicial review of a refusal by a commissioner, Mr K C Goldie-Morrison, on November 15 1989 to order discovery of certain information against the Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd (AFBD) during the course of his hearing of an appeal by Mordens Ltd against AFBD's decision not to admit the company to its membership.
Mr Patrick Howell, QC, for AFBD; Mr Anthony Mann for Mordens; Mr Nigel Pleming for the commissioner.
MR JUSTICE McCULLOUGH said that Mordens traded as futures brokers and sought to become members of AFBD as a result of new legislative measures contained in the Financial Services Act 1986.
That Act prohibited any person from carrying on the trade of investment business unless he was exempt from that prohibition or was authorised so to do. One way to obtain authorisation was to become a member of a recognised self-regulating organisation. Such a body regulated the carrying on of investment business.
AFBD was an organisation which was a recognised self-regulating organisation. Mordens applied for membership of AFBD. That application was refused and Mordens appealed. A commissioner was appointed to hear the apppeal.
By rule 3 of the AFBD rules "… at the hearing of the appeal the commissioner may adopt such procedures as he considers appropriate…". The commissioner held a preliminary hearing to decide various procedural mattters.
At that hearing the commisioner refused a request by Mordens that AFBD should disclose certain documents saying that he did not consider it reasonable that AFBD should disclose the documents.
The substantive hearing of the appeal began on September 25, 1989. The hearing was required to be adjourned and resumed on November 15. In the interim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore
...ex parte Stipplechoice [1985] 2 All ER 465 (distd) Regina v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd, ex parte Mordens Ltd (1991) 3 Admin LR 254 (folld) Regina v Broadcasting Complaints Commission, ex parte British Broadcasting Corporation (1994) 6 Admin LR 714 (folld) Regina v Chief ......
-
McMahon v Law Society of Ireland
...CMSN 1992 106 ALR 11 1992 175 CLR 564 1992 HCA 10 R v ASSOCIATION OF FUTURES BROKERS & DEALERS LTD & ANOR, EX PARTE MORDENS LTD 1991 3 ADMIN LR 254 MCNAMARA v ONTARIO RACING CMSN 1998 164 DLR (4TH) 99 Solicitors Discipline Fair procedures - Preliminary investigation - Inquiry into alleged m......
-
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore
...followed the general approach of the English courts (in Regina v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd, ex parte Mordens Ltd (1991) 3 Admin LR 254 per McCollough J at 263) [I]t is only in the most exceptional circumstances that the court will grant judicial review of a decision tak......
-
The Queen (on the application of Peter Goodland) v Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police
...bodies rather than await the final outcome: see, e.g. R v Association of Future Brokers and Dealers Limited ex parte Mordens Ltd (1991) 3 Admin LR 254, 263. But, on one view, the present case does not fall within either category. Arguably, what matters in the present case is whether Mr Good......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...the concept of prematurity were set out by McCullough J in R v Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers Ltd ex parte Mordens Ltd(1991) 3 Admin LR 254 at 263—264, as observed by V K Rajah J (as he then was) at [17]. Granting judicial review during the course of a hearing by a body amenable......