ARTICLE
14 January 2025

FCA Successfully Appeals Upper Tribunal Decision In Markou v Financial Conduct Authority

LS
Lewis Silkin

Contributor

We have two things at our core: people – both ours and yours - and a focus on creativity, technology and innovation. Whether you are a fast growth start up or a large multinational business, we help you realise the potential in your people and navigate your strategic HR and legal issues, both nationally and internationally. Our award-winning employment team is one of the largest in the UK, with dedicated specialists in all areas of employment law and a track record of leading precedent setting cases on issues of the day. The team’s breadth of expertise is unrivalled and includes HR consultants as well as experts across specialisms including employment, immigration, data, tax and reward, health and safety, reputation management, dispute resolution, corporate and workplace environment.
The Court of Appeal upheld the FCA's ban on Markos Markou from financial services, citing recklessness and lack of integrity, while reducing his financial penalty from £25,000 to £10,000 due to unproven allegations.
United Kingdom Finance and Banking

In 2021 the FCA published a Decision Notice in respect of Markos Markou (MM), director and chief executive of a mortgage broker firm, Financial Solutions (Euro) Limited, seeking to impose a fine of £25,000. It also withdrew approval for MM to perform controlled functions at the company at which he was a director and chief executive and banned him from working in financial services.

MM referred the matter to the Upper Tribunal which asked for the FCA to reconsider the proposed ban and directed that a fine should not be imposed. The FCA appealed the tribunal's decision to the Court of Appeal on five grounds.

Ground 1 related to the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction under section 133 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). The Court of Appeal said that this issue had been overtaken by the decision in FCA v Bluecrest Capital Management (UK) LLP [2024] EWCA Civ 1125 and the test set out about the "matter" referred. That test was met in Markou. The FCA therefore succeeded on Ground 1, but this was insufficient by itself to justify the Court of Appeal interfering with the tribunal's decision.

The other grounds of appeal related to the tribunal's exoneration of MM from recklessness and its conclusion that he did not lack integrity.

The Court of Appeal found that the FCA did establish that MM was reckless and that his recklessness demonstrated a lack of integrity. Therefore, it was appropriate for the court to dismiss the reference regarding the FCA's decision to withdraw the approval given to MM to perform certain functions and relating to the FCA's decision to make an order prohibiting him from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity carried out by an authorised person, exempt person or exempt professional firm. However, the court also said that because not all the allegations made were proved, the level of the appropriate financial penalty to be imposed on MM should be adjusted to reflect this. The court remitted the matter to the FCA with a direction to impose a lesser financial penalty of £10,000 on MM.

The FCA has said that it welcomes the Court of Appeal's judgment.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More