The Upper Tribunal has ruled against a complaint by Barclays currency trader Christopher Ashton that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) had identified him in final notices. The regulator’s victory makes it more difficult for individuals to make similar claims, and for the FCA it is a positive outcome.
In the Ashton case, the FCA had considered that the final notices in question, that of Barclays and one in November 2014 issued to UBS, had not identified Ashton and so they had not provided him with the documentation he subsequently sought to obtain. The Upper Tribunal, however, found against him on the identification issue.
“This is not positive news for traders who perceive that they have been prejudiced by being identified in a warning or decision notice given to another person. It reduces the number of people who can reasonably rely on FSMA to say that they should have been consulted about the FCA’s findings and the decision to identify them,” said Christopher Dyke, associate at law firm Corker Binning.
“The Macris case had opened up the number of individuals who might reasonably make these claims, but the Ashton case shows this is not as wide as has been believed. It is a good result for the FCA, but not so good for individuals who want to be consulted about decisions which they consider have a potential bearing on them,” he said.
“Whether this adversely affects these individuals depends on one’s view of whether they have been identified in the final notices or not, and of whether it is ever advantageous for an individual to seek to become personally involved in a warning or decision notice against another person,” Dyke said.
This article was originally published in Thomson Reuters Accelus.