REGINA V SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS BOARD AND ANOTHER EX PARTE INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISERS ASSOCIATION AND LIBM LTD
| Pages | 98-103 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024871 |
| Date | 01 January 1996 |
| Published date | 01 January 1996 |
| Author | STAUGHTON LJ,J MITCHELL,Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
SIB
PENSION TRANSFERS
STATEMENT:
JUDICIAL REVIEW
DENIED
REGINA
V SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS BOARD AND
ANOTHER
EX
PARTE INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISERS
ASSOCIATION
AND LIBM
LTD
HIGH
COURT
(QUEENS
BENCH:
DIVISIONAL
COURT)
STAUGHTON
LJ
AND
MITCHELL
J
Date of Judgment:
12th
May,
1995
Reported at:
Times
Law
Reports,
18th
May,
1995
THE FACTS
The origins
of
this litigation
lay in
the over-selling
of
personal pensions
that took place after April
1988. On
25th October,
1994, the
Securities
and Investments Board
(SIB)
pub-
lished
a
long-awaited statement,
which
it
described
as
'guidance'. This
statement
was
adopted
on 5th
November,
1994, by the
Insurance
Brokers Registration Council (IBRC),
a recognised self-regulating organisa-
tion
(SRO) for the
purposes
of the
Financial Services Act
1986.
The objectives
of
this
SIB
state-
ment were
to
ensure
a
wholesale
retrospective
and
proactive
re-
examination
of all
personal pensions
transactions conducted through
the
medium
of
Independent Financial
Advisers (IFAs), with
a
view
to
com-
pensating those clients
who had suf-
fered loss through
bad
advice.
The
SIB statement imposed
a
system
of
self-assessment
on the
2,069 IFAs
affected
by it. For
every pension
agreement that they sold they were
to
ascertain (1) whether
it
was compliant
with relevant regulations,
viz., was
proper
and
adequate advice given?
If
not,
(2)
whether
the
client
had suf-
fered loss? Then,
(3) was
this loss
a
result
of the
noncompliance? Finally,
(4) what redress
or
compensation
should
be
offered
to the
client?
THE ACTION
The first applicants were
a
trade asso-
ciation
of
IFAs
and the
second appli-
cants were
a
firm
of
professional
98
To continue reading
Request your trial