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 Prominence Technology Limited.

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