Barry Williams v The Financial Services Authority
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Mowschenson,Member Burbidge,Member Burdon |
| Subject Matter | Financial Services,30 November 2011 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Date | 30 November 2011 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
Case No: FIN/2010/0006
APPROVED PERSON – prohibition notice - withdrawal of approval – whether fit and
proper - no
UPPER TRIBUNAL TAX & CHANCERY CHAMBER
FINANCIAL SERVICES
BARRY WILLIAMS Appellant
- and -
THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY Respondents
Tribunal: TERENCE
MOWSCHENSON QC (Judge)
MR C.H. BURBIDGE
MR P.V. BURDON
Sitting in public in London on 25 October 2010
The Appellant in person
Miss Clare McMullen for the Financial Services Authority
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2010
2
DECISION
The Reference
5 1. By a Decision Notice dated 26 February 2010 the Financial Services Authority
(“the Authority”) informed the Applicant (“Mr Williams”) of its decision to:
(1) impose a financial penalty of £50,000 pursuant to section 66 of the
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (the “Act”) for failing to comply 10 with Principle 1 of the FSA’s Statements of Principle and Code of Practice
for Approved Persons;
(2) withdraw, pursuant to section 63 of Act, the approval given to Mr
Williams to perform controlled functions; and 15
(3) make an order pursuant to section 56 of the Act, prohibiting Mr Williams
from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried
on by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm on
the grounds that he is not a fit and proper person, 20
Mr Williams referred the matter to the Tribunal by a reference notice dated 23
March 2010.
2. The decision was based on findings of dishonesty made by Mr Justice Teare 25 against Mr Williams in his judgment of 3 June 2008 in the case of Markel
International Insurance Company Limited and others v Surety Guarantee
Consultants Ltd and others [2008] EWHC 1135 (Comm) (the “High Court
proceedings”) in which Mr Williams was the third defendant. In those
proceedings Mr Justice Teare found that three of Mr Williams’ co-defendants had 30 conspired to defraud the claimants, and that Mr Williams, while not a conspirator,
deliberately closed his eyes to concerns about the business, lied to the claimants
on some occasions, and did not act honestly or in the claimants’ best interests.
3. Mr Williams referred the Decision Notice to the Tribunal on the grounds that the
35 Authority had relied solely on the High Court judgment and had failed to take into
account the fact that he had been granted permission to appeal that judgment
(which appeal he subsequently abandoned), and that the Authority relied on some
findings from the High Court judgment which he disputes.
40
4. At the hearing before the Tribunal Mr Williams did not give evidence but
confined himself to relying upon the points made in his skeleton argument. In
appearing before the Tribunal he was assisted by Mr Rob Maciver who acted as
his friend.
45
To continue reading
Request your trial