Tribunal rules on third party rights

The Tribunal has handed down its decision in One Insurance Ltd’s case against FCA. The company had complained that FCA had identified it in its notices to One Call Insurance Services and John Radford, and that the notices contained statements that were prejudicial to the company.  Because One Call had inadvertently wrongly used client moneys, one of the effects of this had been to indirectly capitalise the company, which was connected to One Call.  FCA had stated in its notice that it made no allegation of wrongdoing against the company. It served the notices on it under FSMA, as the company was identified and the reasons for the action were prejudicial to it.

The company complained that FCA had no reason to disclose its name. FCA contended that the fact of the common indirect ownership of the company and One Call was common knowledge and easy to establish, so any reader would, in any event, know the company referred to was One Insurance.  It contended the likelihood of damage to the company was small. The company contended it risked being tainted by the admitted conduct of Mr Radford and One Call.

There was no suggestion FCA should not have made the statement of the benefit to the company, and that on the evidence, merely removing its name would serve no purpose. The Tribunal has now invited the parties to submit draft directions to it before there is a hearing on the substantive reference.