Allen Phillip Elliott v Financial Services Authority
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Brice,Member Abrams,Member Burdon |
| Subject Matter | Financial Services,30 March 2006 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Date | 30 March 2006 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
REGULATED ACTIVITIES – performance of - prohibition order -
whether Applicant a fit and proper person to perform functions in relation
to regulated activities carried on by an authorised person – no – whether the
Authority had power to make a prohibition order – yes - reference
determined in favour of the Authority – Financial Services and Markets Act
2000 s 56
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS TRIBUNAL
ALLEN PHILLIP ELLIOTT
Applicant
- and -
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
Respondent
Tribunal: DR A N BRICE (Chairman)
MR I B ABRAMS
MR P V BURDON
Sitting in public in London on 20 and 21 October 2005 and 19 December 2005
Graham Platford of Counsel for the Applicant in respect of the second issue only;
otherwise the Applicant appeared in person
Timothy Dutton QC and Dermot Lynch for the Respondent
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006
2
DECISION
The reference
1. Mr Allen Phillip Elliott (the Applicant) referred to the Tribunal a Decision
Notice issued by the Financial Services Authority (the Authority) on 15 December
2003. The Decision Notice stated that the Authority had decided to prohibit the
Applicant from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried
on by an authorised person because it appeared to the Authority that the Applicant
was not a fit and proper person to perform any such function.
The legislation
2. The Decision Notice was given under the provisions of section 56 of the
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) the relevant parts of which
provide:
“(1) Subsection (2) applies if it appears to the Authority that an individual is not a
fit and proper person to perform functions in relation to a regulated activity carried on
by an authorised person.
(2) The Authority may make an order (“a prohibition order”) prohibiting the
individual from performing a specified function, any function falling within a
specified description or any function.
(3) A prohibition order may relate to-
(a) a specified regulated activity, any regulated activity falling within a
specified description, or all regulated activities;
(b) authorised persons generally or any person within a specified class of
authorised person.
(4) An individual who performs or agrees to perform a function in breach of a
prohibition order is guilty of an offence … .”
…
(8) This section applies to the performance of functions in relation to a regulated activity
carried on by –
(a) a person who is an exempt person in relation to that activity, and
(b) a person to whom, as a result of Part XX, the general prohibition does not
apply in relation to that activity,
as it applies to the performance of functions in relation to a regulated activity carried on by an
authorised person.
The issues
3. At a hearing held on 11 July 2005 the Tribunal heard a preliminary issue. In
2001 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the Applicant guilty of conduct
unbefitting a solicitor and ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. The
preliminary issue was whether the Findings and Order of the Solicitors Disciplinary
Tribunal were admissible evidence of the Applicant’s fitness and propriety and
whether the Authority could reply upon the Findings and Order without the need to
prove each and every allegation which the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal had found
to be proved.
To continue reading
Request your trial