Guernsey: Regulatory Penalties – An Update – Guidance From The Court Of Appeal

Last Updated: 24 June 2016
Article by Mathew Newman

On 27 May 2015, Ogier published an article examining the way in which the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the GFSC) imposes sanctions and the scrutiny the same are subject to by the Royal Court of Guernsey (the Court).  This followed the handing down of the Court's judgment in Bordeaux Services (Guernsey) Limited & Ors –v- The GFSC.

Since then, the Royal Court has handed down a further decision in the matter of David John Merrien –v- Cees Schrauwers (Chairman of the GFSC), part of which was then heard by the Court of Appeal on appeal by the GFSC.1

Mathew Newman, a partner in Ogier's dispute resolution team, examines both decisions.

Royal Court decision

This took the format of an appeal challenging the decision of the GFSC to publish a short notice on its website in December 2013 stating that the Appellant was "not licensed to carry out controlled investment business" and that he was "also not licensed to carry out long term insurance business" under the respective laws mentioned therein.  It also challenged a decision of December 2014 to: (1) make prohibition orders against the Appellant under the suite of regulatory laws, (2) dis-apply the exemption set out in section 3(1)(g) of the Regulation of Fiduciaries, Administration Businesses and Company Directors etc (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000 (the "Fiduciaries Law") and (3) to impose a financial penalty of £200,000 and to make a public statement under section 11D and 11C respectively of the Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1987 (the "FSC Law").

Although the hearing was held in private, the Court stated that because the statement was already public, it would be contrary to the principles of open justice to hear the case in private (hence the judgment being published) and that where the details of a decision under appeal involve a statement that has already been published, even if the parties did not agree to a public hearing, the Court was more likely than not to order one.

Statement on Website

Because the full suite of POI laws had been relied on for the making of the prohibition orders against the Appellant, he had to invoke the appeal provisions in each, as well as the provisions in the FSC Law.

The Court examined the relevant laws and found that there was no right of appeal available to the Appellant in respect of the decision to publish the notice in December 2013 or the ongoing decision to leave it there.  Further, the Appellant had actually consented to the wording of such information when his advocate wrote to the GFSC before it was published, stating that it was "perfectly acceptable".  The Court did, however, observe that it was not sure why the GFSC felt it necessary to continue to have the notice on the website given that events had progressed to final determination, but that whether they wished to remove it was entirely a matter for the GFSC and not something on which the Court could rule as part of the appeal

Prohibition Orders

As regards the prohibition orders, it was alleged that there had been a material error as to the procedure followed, particularly the non-compliance by the GFSC with its own published Guidance Note on the Decision Making Process.  Paragraph 9.6.5 of the Guidance Note stated that the decision-maker would make sure that the party was aware of and had access to the Guidance Note.  The GFSC were unable to point to anything to show compliance with this requirement and the Appellant invited the Court to draw an inference that the Guidance Note was not referred to.  The Court declined to do so stating that the Appellant was asking the Court to make an inference that was not warranted.  The Court held that what mattered was whether there had been broad compliance with a fair procedure such that if the overall impression was that the relevant stages had been followed and the Appellant had been dealt with fairly, the ground of appeal fell away.

Who can attend meetings with the GFSC?

Paragraph 10.2 of the Guidance Note indicated who may be in attendance at meetings with the GFSC and in this case, there were more officers of the GFSC present than usual.  The Appellant had commented towards the end of the meeting that "I feel I am severely outnumbered and I feel pressured into saying certain things that I perhaps don't want to say".  The Court observed that with an unrepresented party, it was questionable why so many people were considered as being needed to attend to assist and further, that although the Director-General had been introduced as simply observing the proceedings, he had actually intervened such that the Court was "surprised" such intervention had been permitted.  However, whilst this was said to be an "unfortunate turn of events", it could not be regarded as a material error of procedure.

Various other allegations were made which were largely fact specific however, the Court rejected the arguments there had been any procedural errors and dismissed the appeal against the prohibition notices. 

Notice under Section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law

The Court found similarly in respect of the decision to serve a notice on the Appellant under section 3(1)(g) of the Fiduciaries Law.  The Court also briefly considered whether there were any grounds to find this particular decision was unreasonable or lacking in proportionality.  The Senior Decision-Maker found that the Appellant had "recklessly promoted a high-risk investment which was unsuitable for retail investors, and that he had dishonestly diverted payments into his personal bank account" such that the Court found the decision to dis-apply the exemption was not disproportionate or unreasonable, it flowed naturally from the findings made and the other sanctions imposed on the Appellant.  That appeal was therefore also dismissed.

Was the financial penalty appropriate?

As regards the imposition of the financial penalty of £200,000, the Statement of Reasons had set out the following:

"The maximum penalty which the Commission has power to impose under section 11D of the Financial Services Commission (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1987, is £200,000.  But for that statutory cap, the Commission considers that the seriousness of Mr Merrien's conduct as recorded above, exacerbated by his failure to take responsibility for exposing clients of GIBL to undue risk in connection with a significant part of their pension portfolios, and by his failure to deal with the Commission in an open and cooperative manner in the course of these Enforcement Proceedings, would have merited a substantially higher financial penalty."

The Court held that this paragraph showed that the decision maker misdirected himself when considering his approach to the financial penalty to impose.  The matters that section 11D(2) of the FSC Law required him to take into account were exhaustively listed and there was no general "catch all" permitting the GFSC to take into account any other relevant matter.  The GFSC was as bound by the statutory cap as anyone else.

The Court stated that it was "left with the impression that the GFSC has generally recognised that penalties against entities can be higher than against individuals and that the GFSC is perhaps not paying as much regard to the strictures placed on it by the legislature as it should.  In particular, by having regard to the level of penalties imposed in the UK where, as I understand it, there is no statutory cap."

As a result, the Court found this was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense and the decision to impose a penalty of £200,000 was an error of law, having regard to the analysis given in Walters -v- States Housing Authority

How should the GFSC approach the imposition of financial penalties?

It was held that in considering whether a person's contravention or non-fulfilment is one of the worst examples of its kind, the GFSC should adopt a similar approach to that of a sentencing court and ask whether it falls within a broad band of cases it regards as amongst the worst examples it encounters in practice.  The focus should initially be on the experience of Guernsey but if it is something about which the GFSC has no prior experience, it can look to other jurisdictions but it should be only to assess whether the contravention or non-fulfilment with which it is dealing can properly be categorised in the most serious category.

The Court examined the financial penalty imposed on the Appellant and on his co-director and noted that the disparity was so great it brought into question whether the financial penalty imposed on the Appellant was disproportionate, such that this was a further reason to set the decision aside.  Further, the GFSC must also have regard to the person's ability to pay the financial penalty.  As the Appellant would be unable to pay, this made the level of penalty unreasonable.  The matter was to be remitted to the GFSC to reconsider.

The Court of Appeal's decision

Certain parts of the Royal Court's judgment were appealed, namely: the Royal Court erred in law in its application of s11D(2) and s11D(2)(e) of the FSC Law.  In particular, in deciding whether to impose a financial penalty under s11D(1) - s11D(2) did not exhaustively list the factors which the GFSC may properly take into account; and s11D(2)(e) did not require the GFSC to be satisfied that the person concerned was in a position to pay, either at all or within a reasonable time.

Counsel for the GFSC submitted that s11D(2) had to be read in conjunction with the suite of regulatory laws which conferred the powers and discretion that the GFSC is permitted to exercise to discharge its functions.  It was said that s8(1) of the FSC Law set down the overarching powers of the GFSC that it "may do anything which appears to it to be conducive to the carrying out of its functions or to be incidental to their proper discharge".

Further, s11D(1) of the FSC Law allowed for the imposition of financial penalties for not meeting the minimum criteria for licensing under the Regulatory Laws.  S24 of the FSC Law provided that the "prescribed laws" included "the regulatory laws" which were inclusive of, but not limited to, the POI Law.  The act of imposing a financial penalty was, along with other enforcement sanctions, in support of a statutory function assigned to the GFSC under any enactment which, in this case, was the FSC Law read together with the contraventions of the POI Law.

s2(4) of the FSC Law provided that:

    "In the exercise of its [...] functions the Commission may take into account any matter, which it considers appropriate, but shall in particular, have regard to

        (a) [the protection of the public interest, including] the protection of the public against financial loss due to dishonesty, incompetence or malpractice by persons carrying on financial business, and (b)  the protection and enhancement of the reputation of the Bailiwick as a financial centre"

The GFSC pointed out that the ellipsis in s2(4) reflected the repeal of the word "general" by s1 of the FSC (Bailiwick of Guernsey) (Amendment) Law 2002.  It therefore followed that the discretion permitted by s2(4) of the FSC Law, on a proper construction, was exercisable in relation to both the GFSC's general and statutory functions.

The GFSC submitted that the overriding objectives of the GFSC as set out in s2(4) of the FSC Law had to be available to the GFSC in its operation of s11D(2), notwithstanding the lack of cross reference in the latter section.  Thus in conclusion, it was submitted that in addition to being obliged to take into consideration the factors set out in s11D(2), the GFSC was entitled to take into account any other factor relevant to the decision as to whether or not to impose a penalty or as to the amount, at least insofar as the factor also bore a relationship to protection of the public interest and reputational protection for the Bailiwick.

It was then submitted that it was not a mandatory requirement that the person have the ability to pay the level of financial penalty being considered.  All subsections within s11D(2) of the FSC Law were for consideration and weight should be accorded to them depending on the circumstances.  In construing the statute, the canon of statutory interpretation requiring a narrow construction of penal provisions did not apply in circumstances where a competing public interest was engaged.  The GFSC submitted that the approach which had been taken by the Royal Court reflected the approach taken from the criminal law as opposed to that within regulatory matters.

The Court of Appeal said that the broad question was whether, notwithstanding that the statute did not indicate that the GFSC may take into consideration any other relevant matter, the GFSC was entitled to do so (a) because of their overarching objectives under s2(4) and (b) because the considerations in s11D(2) appeared to relate to aggravating and mitigating circumstances for the person concerned.  They said however, for present purposes, it was not necessary to embark upon so broad a task.

It noted it was clear that the concern of the GFSC was to be able to take into account the impact of the contravention or matter of non-fulfilment in a wide context, namely, potential impact on a wider sector of the public and potential impact on the reputation of the Bailiwick.  It was held that s11D(2)(b) was expressed sufficiently widely to enable the concerns of the GFSC to be met.  s11D(2)(b) indicated that the Commission must take into consideration the "seriousness of the contravention or non-fulfilment" such that the subsection referred to the general concept of "seriousness" rather than "the financial impact" or such like.  "Seriousness" therefore fell to be interpreted as "seriousness" in the context of the financial operations within the Bailiwick.

It thus held that the provisions of s11D(2)(b) were sufficiently wide to direct the GFSC to take into consideration the seriousness of the contravention or non-fulfilment in the sense of the impact on the public interest and the impact on the reputation of the Bailiwick as a financial centre.

However, the Court of Appeal clarified that it did not wholly disagree with the views expressed by the Court since (1) it was not clear that this general line of argument on statutory interpretation was before the Court and (2) the concern of the Court had arisen out of a different factual context than that being now put by the GFSC.  In terms: the Court had found that the error into which the GFSC had fallen in carrying out the exercise under s11D(2) was to look to other jurisdictions for the purpose of taking into consideration the actual penalties imposed in those jurisdictions, notwithstanding that the jurisdiction in question may have had legislation which did not impose a cap but had held there was no reason why it could not look to other jurisdictions to assess whether the contravention or non-fulfilment with which it was dealing could properly be categorised in the most serious category.

The Court of Appeal therefore held that in appraising the seriousness of contravention or non-fulfilment, it was perfectly appropriate for the GFSC to look to other jurisdictions for guidance as to categorisation though they cannot be treated as precedents.

However, they held that the Court went too far in indicating that a level of penalty would be wrong in principle of it was not capable of being satisfied.  On a proper reading of the section, the potential financial consequences to the person concerned and relevant third parties was merely one of a number of specified factors which the GFSC must take into consideration.

Interestingly, the GFSC submitted that whilst the imposing of a financial penalty under the statute was not designed to bring about insolvency, that did not mean a penalty could not be fixed that might have such a result.  The Court of Appeal said they had difficulty with that submission: if a penalty brought about some form of insolvency, that would undoubtedly have an effect on the creditors and other third parties financially.  Assuming that a penalty under the statute constituted a civil debt for which the GFSC could sue, there seemed no good reason why the States should benefit at the expense of other legitimate creditors.


This is another example of the sanctions imposed by the GFSC being subject to the scrutiny of the Royal Court and further, by the Court of Appeal.  The following can be taken from these two judgments:

  1. There is no statutory right of appeal against the publication of a statement on the GFSC's website.  That of course leaves open the possibility of bringing proceedings for judicial review of such publication;
  2. Whilst the GFSC is able to have as many officers as they consider present at meetings with potential sanctionees, the Court are unlikely to be impressed with an "ambush" where there is an unrepresented party.  Further, those who are stated as observers only, should remain so;
  3. The starting point for the imposition of financial penalties should be comparison with other Guernsey cases.  Where there are none, the GFSC can look to other jurisdictions for guidance, but only insofar as to assess levels of seriousness; of contravention or non-fulfilment – not as a direct comparator;
  4. In assessing what sanctions to impose, the GFSC can take into account the impact the contravention or non-fulfilment may have on the public interest and reputation of the Bailiwick as a financial centre; and
  5. If a person cannot pay a penalty, it is not wrong, in principle, to impose one.  However, it is unlikely the GFSC will become a priority creditor if such person is bankrupt/becomes so as a result of the penalty.


1 Cees Schrauwers (Chairman of the GFSC) –v- David John Merrien

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.