Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2010] All ER (D) 245 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2010] EWHC 1547 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

Vos J

Representation James Purchas (instructed by the Financial Services Authority) for the FSA.
  The defendants appeared in person.
Judgment Dates: 29 June 2010

Catchwords

Financial Services - Financial Services Authority (FSA) - Regulation of financial services - Defendants found to have carried on regulated activity while unauthorised - Regulated activity in question accepting or purporting to accept deposits - Defendants ordered to pay just sum to FSA in respect of profits accrued and losses caused as result of contravention - Defendants seeking exclusion of deposits paid or taken by relatives from calculations in purported reliance on statutory exemption - Whether persons in question 'close relatives' for purposes of statutory exception - Quantum of 'just sum' to be paid by each defendant - ss 19, 382(2) - (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, , para 6(1).

The Case

Financial Services Financial Services Authority (FSA). The Chancery Division considered, inter alia, the meaning of the phrase 'close relative' in the (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, , (the Order) for the purposes of deciding whether a person fell within the exemption in respect of accepting deposits set out in art6(1)(d) of the Order. It held that: (i) only close relatives of the person who had contravened the relevant requirement were included in the definition; and (ii) relatives by marriage, except where expressly stated in art3(1) of the Order, were excluded.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.