- Regulatory shortcomings as a ground for disqualification (Re Brooklands Trustees Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What light does this judgment throw on the earlier case of Adams v Options SIPP UK?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Pensions analysis: This case considers the relevance of the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA’s) Principles for Businesses and good practice material when an application for disqualification orders is made on the basis of regulatory failings. The defendants were the directors of a company which provided savings and investment products, including self-invested personal pension schemes (SIPPs). Following unsuccessful investments by customers in SIPPs, regulatory failings were found to have occurred and the company went into administration. The judge, distinguishing Adams v Options SIPP UK LLP, held that for the purposes of the disqualification jurisdiction misconduct might occur without a breach of statutory duty and the Principles for Businesses and good practice material were relevant in determining whether there had been misconduct. He went on to decide that there had been misconduct, but that it was not such as to justify disqualification or to render the directors unfit. The case helpfully clarifies when regulatory material other than rules may be relevant to an issue before the court. Written by Elizabeth Ovey, barrister, at Radcliffe Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial