Prominence Technology Limited v Financial Services Authority: FIN/2004/0027
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery decision of Judge Bishopp and Member Hanson and Member Laing on 13 September 2005.
Read the full decision in .
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION 鈥� application for approval of named officer to perform all controlled functions 鈥� named officer considered not to be fit and proper 鈥� applications rejected 鈥� sole issue whether named officer fit and proper since if not, threshold conditions 4 and 5 not satisfied 鈥� named officer鈥檚 antecedent history 鈥� whether indicative that he is not fit and proper 鈥� failure to disclose antecedent history 鈥� whether indicative of lack of candour 鈥� tribunal not satisfied on evidence that named officer fit and proper 鈥� Authority鈥檚 decision upheld.
Updates to this page
Published 1 December 2016