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 — application for approval of named officer to perform all controlled functions — named officer considered not to be fit and proper — applications rejected — sole issue whether named officer fit and proper since if not, threshold conditions 4 and 5 not satisfied — named officer’s antecedent history — whether indicative that he is not fit and proper — failure to disclose antecedent history — whether indicative of lack of candour — tribunal not satisfied on evidence that named officer fit and proper — Authority’s decision upheld.
Published 1 December 2016