The FSA fines Bear Stearns £40,000 for failing to report transactions pursuant to section 206 of FSMA 2000.
|
Delegated legislation which amended and extended primary legislation to create a new criminal offence was ultra vires.
|
A life prisoner charged with two offences of prison indiscipline (under Rule 51 Prison Rules) was not entitled at common law to be tried by an independent adjudicator instead of the prison governor; his trial did not amount to a breach of Art.6 ECHR.
|
Big money. Exceptional facts leading to departure from yardstick of equality on the basis of special (or ‘stellar’) contribution. Lambert v Lambert 2002 CA applied.
|
Authorisation: The FSA was entitled to rely on the findings of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in holding that the applicant was not fit and proper. The applicant would not be entitled to impugn that decision. However the Tribunal would take into account new evidence put forward by the applicant.
|
MyTravel received a financial penalty of £240,000 for the delay in announcing its year end profits 2002 in accordance with the Listing Rules.
|
A failure by the police to issue a HORT/1 form was not fatal to the prosecution case where the defendant had been charged with driving other than in accordance with a licence and driving without a licence and the Crown had proved that the defendant was driving a vehicle on the road. Furthermore, a defendant who did not report an accident because he was unconscious at the scene and subsequently discharged himself from hospital was guilty of failing to report an accident under the RTA 1988.
|
The Court has jurisdiction under the Companies Act 1985 s. 425 to wind up an insurance undertaking whose principal place of business is not within the jurisdiction. Council Regulations 1346/2000 and 44/2001 did not apply.
|
Mortgage and General Insurance: In respect of mortgage intermediaries the public are entitled to expect that those who advise them, whether or not they handle their money, subscribe to the highest standards of probity and competence. The failure to disclose previous warnings from regulatory bodies could not be excused on the basis of oversight nor that the corporate entity was merely a financial intermediary.
|
When determining whether a defendant ‘benefited’ for the purposes of restraint proceedings under s.71(4) CJA 1988 the court should consider any property the defendant had been instrumental is getting out of his crime. The defendant did not have to be shown to be in control of the property.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |