The Queen (on the application of Christopher Willford) (Claimant/ Respondent) v Financial Services Authority
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Moore-Bick,Lady Justice Black,Sir Malcolm Pill |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 674 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2012/1551 |
| Date | 13 June 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 674
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Mr. Justice Silber
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Lady Justice Black
and
Sir Malcolm Pill
Case No: C1/2012/1551
Mr. Michael Brindle Q.C. and Mr. Rupert Allen (instructed by Financial Services Authority) for the appellant
Miss Dinah Rose Q.C. and Mr. Ben Jaffey (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) for the respondent
Hearing dates: 21 February 2013
Approved Judgment
On 20 th and 21 st February 2013 the court heard an appeal by the Financial Services Authority ("FSA"), now the Financial Conduct Authority, against an order of Silber J. quashing a Decision Notice given to Mr. Christopher Willford under section 67 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The hearing before Silber J. was conducted in private and the judgment was published in a redacted and anonymised form in order to ensure that Mr. Willford's identity was not disclosed. At the beginning of the hearing of the appeal we were asked to hear the matter in private, but we declined to do so. However, we did make an order prohibiting until further notice the identification of the respondent or the reporting of any information that might lead to his identification.
Draft judgments were prepared and made available to the parties on 1 st May 2013. No attempt was made in the drafts to conceal Mr. Willford's identity in order that the parties could understand clearly how the court intended to express its decision, but that was drawn to the parties' attention when the drafts were made available and Mr. Willford was given the opportunity to apply to the court for an order that the judgment be published in a form that did not reveal his identity. In the event he has applied for an order that our judgments be published in a redacted and anonymised form. Both parties have filed written submission setting out their arguments in support of and against the application, for which we are grateful.
In support of the application Miss Rose Q.C. and Mr. Jaffey relied on the statutory provisions which prohibit the FSA from disclosing the existence of an investigation, its progress or its outcome until it has reached its conclusion, and then only if it culminates in some form of sanction. They pointed out that in the present case the FSA was obliged not to disclose Mr. Willford's identity until it had given him a Final Notice confirming a Decision Notice given under section 67 of the Act. The respondent could have challenged the Decision Notice before the Upper Tribunal, but since its proceedings are held in public his identity would have been disclosed sooner or later. However, the purpose of these proceedings is to have the existing Decision Notice quashed. Mr. Willford has failed to achieve his objective in this court, but he is seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and counsel have submitted that his identity should not be made public until the proceedings have been finally determined. They say that if they are ultimately successful and the Decision Notice is quashed, the proceedings before the FSA will not have reached the stage at which his identity can be revealed. Behind these submissions lies the implicit assertion that disclosure of Mr. Willford's identity would cause irreparable damage to his professional reputation.
Mr. Brindle Q.C. and Mr. Allen for the FSA have submitted that this application raises important questions of principle, in particular, the principle of open justice. They argue that the appeal raises important questions relating to the conduct of disciplinary tribunals and that publication of the judgments in full is necessary to enable anyone who reads them properly to understand the nature of, and the basis for, the court's decision. They also suggest that the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear any appeal in this matter in private, so that Mr. Willford's identity will be disclosed in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nabeel Ahsan v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...it is more effective and convenient for it to hear the case; this is however not a good reason to assume jurisdiction ( Willford [ [2013] EWCA Civ 674])." He went on to gloss that summary at para. 77 of his judgment, but it will be more convenient if I set that out later (see para. 81 40 T......
-
The Pensions Regulator v (1) Payae Ltd
...this issue, Mr Hilliard QC submits that the relevant principles are to be found in the judgments of the Court of Appeal in R (Willford) v Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 674 and R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2011] QB 218. In my ju......
-
Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Company Ltd and Another Unwired Planet LLC (Tenth Party) Telefonaktiebolaget Ericsson (Eleventh Party)
...and explains the reasons why. Principles 7 That justice should be done in public is a vital aspect of the rule of law. In R (Willford) v Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 674 the Court of Appeal held at paragraph 9 (Moore-Bick LJ) that the principles of open justice require that ......
-
T v Financial Conduct Authority
...I consider that the conclusion stated by Moore-Bick LJ at paragraph 9 of his judgment in R (Willford) v Financial Services Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 674 is pertinent, namely that although the regulatory proceedings were private, once a party has stepped outside those proceedings by making ......