• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Financial Regulation & Compliance >Judicial review of Financial Services Compensation Scheme's exercise of power to impose compensation costs levy
【24h】

Judicial review of Financial Services Compensation Scheme's exercise of power to impose compensation costs levy

机译：司法覆核金融服务补偿计划的权力，可征收征费

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the judicial review of Financial Services Compensation Scheme's (FSCS) exercise of power to impose compensation costs levy (R v. Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd and Financial Services Authority ex parte ABS Financial Planning and others; Queens Bench Division of High Court; Administrative Court (Birmingham); Mr Justice Beatson). Design/methodology/approach – The paper describes the judicial review action. It arose out of the FSCS imposition of an interim levy of some £32 million to defray compensation costs arising from the default of Keydata Investment Services Ltd (Keydata) and the claimants impugned, as wrong in law and procedurally incorrect, its decision in March 2010 to allocate the costs of that levy to be borne by those firms that the FSCS classified as “investment intermediaries”. The paper gives details of the decision. Findings – The claimants argued that the error in law or irrationality were constituted by the FSCS's determination that: first, the costs of the Keydata claims arose or could be expected to arise out of one or more of the four regulated activities in the D2 sub-class to which FSCS referred in its reasoning behind its decision. Rather, the claimants argued, the true position was that the claims did not arise out of any of these activities but arose out of Keydata's marketing of its plans; and second, the costs did not arise and could not be expected to arise out of any D1 sub-class activity of “managing investments”. Originality/value – This decision illustrates the increasing difficulty of drawing a clear line between discretionary management and agency broking, for the claimants made a strong argument that Keydata should be considered to have been much more than a passive distribution conduit or channel.
机译：目的–本文的目的是讨论对金融服务补偿计划（FSCS）行使征收补偿费的权力的司法审查（R v。Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd和金融服务局单方面获得ABS Financial Planning等）；高等法院皇后区分庭；行政法院（伯明翰）；比阿特森大法官）。设计/方法/方法–本文描述了司法审查行动。它是由于FSCS征收约3200万英镑的临时税而支付的，用以支付因Keydata Investment Services Ltd（Keydata）违约而产生的赔偿费用，而索赔人在2010年3月裁定其为法律错误和程序上不正确，分配该征费的成本，由FSCS归类为“投资中介机构”的公司承担。本文提供了决策的详细信息。调查结果–索赔人争辩说，法律或不合理性的错误是由FSCS确定的：首先，Keydata索赔的费用由D2子类别中的四个受规管活动中的一项或多项产生或预期由其引起。 FSCS在其决策背后的推理中引用的类。索赔人争辩说，真正的立场是，索赔不是来自任何这些活动，而是来自Keydata计划销售。第二，成本没有发生，并且也不会因“管理投资”的任何D1子类别活动而产生。原创性/价值–该决定说明了在全权管理和代理经纪之间划清界限的难度越来越大，因为索赔人强烈主张，应将Keydata视为不仅仅是被动分配渠道或渠道。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号