Tweet
Jeffery v The Financial Conduct Authority [2016] EWCA Civ 187 (19 January 2016)
More...
LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE: This is an application for permission to appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dated 27 June 2013.
By that decision, the tribunal made a number of findings of misconduct against Mr Jeffery involving breaches of principles 1 and 4 of the Authority's Statement of Principles. It found that he was guilty of a serious lack of integrity and imposed a penalty of £150,000 and made a prohibition order. In so doing, the tribunal upheld a decision notice of the Authority issued by its Regulatory Decision Committee on 13 July 2010. The penalty was specified in the decision of 27 June 2013 but the court then adjourned that part of the proceedings pending any submission by Mr Jeffery of evidence as to his means. Directions were given whereby Mr Jeffery had liberty to serve and file a hardship application supported by a witness statement within 28 days. He did not do so. On 9 August, the penalty was finally determined in the sum of £150,000.
.............
I see nothing in the matters that have been raised that begins to show that the tribunal was actually biased or that a well-informed member of the public with the characteristics of the reasonable observer would think that there was a possibility that that was so.
The fact that the tribunal has found against Mr Jeffery is no basis for an assertion of bias, particularly where no application has been made to this court for permission to appeal the content of the decision on any basis other than bias. An error of law or fact, if such there was, is not the same as bias.
For all those reasons, I propose to refuse permission to appeal.
LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE: This is an application for permission to appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) dated 27 June 2013.
By that decision, the tribunal made a number of findings of misconduct against Mr Jeffery involving breaches of principles 1 and 4 of the Authority's Statement of Principles. It found that he was guilty of a serious lack of integrity and imposed a penalty of £150,000 and made a prohibition order. In so doing, the tribunal upheld a decision notice of the Authority issued by its Regulatory Decision Committee on 13 July 2010. The penalty was specified in the decision of 27 June 2013 but the court then adjourned that part of the proceedings pending any submission by Mr Jeffery of evidence as to his means. Directions were given whereby Mr Jeffery had liberty to serve and file a hardship application supported by a witness statement within 28 days. He did not do so. On 9 August, the penalty was finally determined in the sum of £150,000.
.............
I see nothing in the matters that have been raised that begins to show that the tribunal was actually biased or that a well-informed member of the public with the characteristics of the reasonable observer would think that there was a possibility that that was so.
The fact that the tribunal has found against Mr Jeffery is no basis for an assertion of bias, particularly where no application has been made to this court for permission to appeal the content of the decision on any basis other than bias. An error of law or fact, if such there was, is not the same as bias.
For all those reasons, I propose to refuse permission to appeal.
