- in United States
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence industries
- within Cannabis & Hemp, Law Practice Management and Privacy topic(s)
In R (CIT) v Financial Conduct Authority (No 1) [2025] EWHC 2614 (Admin), the High Court dismissed a judicial review claim challenging the FCA's decision to publicly name a firm as the subject of an FCA investigation. The firm had argued that, although an anonymised announcement could be lawful, naming it was unlawful and unreasonable.
Originally, the FCA was going to issue an anonymised announcement but then decided to name the firm on consumer protection grounds (and only gave it 24 hours' notice of its intention to do so).
This case concerned the interpretation and application of ENFG 4.1 in the FCA Handbook, which sets out when the FCA may announce investigations. It sets a baseline that "the FCA will not normally" publicise the fact of an investigation. Against that baseline, the Guide provides three routes for publicity decisions:
- No announcement: the normal position.
- An anonymised announcement: permissible where doing so is desirable for general education or to encourage compliance.
- A naming announcement: possible only where the "exceptional circumstances" test is met and, in deciding whether to announce, the FCA has considered the potential prejudice to any subject.
An announcement may be made "in exceptional circumstances" where it is desirable to: maintain public confidence; protect consumers or investors; prevent widespread malpractice; help the investigation (for example, by bringing forward witnesses); or maintain the smooth operation of the market.
The court accepted three propositions on interpretation that will be of continuing relevance:
- Exceptionality is assessed against investigated situations, not regulated situations generally.
- When considering naming, the FCA must judge desirability and exceptionality against both alternatives: no announcement and an anonymised announcement.
- Reasons justifying naming must be reasons relevant to naming, not merely reasons that could justify some form of announcement.
The court identified that the decisive aspect of the FCA's reasoning was a consumer-protection rationale tailored to the firm's own customers. The FCA assessed that effective protection required those customers to be clearly and promptly informed, by the regulator, that their firm was under investigation, and that a naming announcement was the most effective means of achieving that objective. The judge regarded this as the "key theme" that justified naming over an anonymised approach or reliance on firm-led communications. In short, consumer protection could not be "adequately met" by an anonymised announcement because it would not actually reach and inform the relevant customer cohort about their options; nor would a letter from the firm, absent disclosure of the investigation, provide equivalent clarity.
Against this backdrop, the court accepted that the FCA had identified, weighed, and outweighed the potential prejudice to the firm within the meaning of ENFG 4.1.4G(2), and that the naming decision fell within the range of reasonable regulatory responses.
The court issued the judgment in two separate parts. The first was aimed at being published immediately, so it protects CIT's anonymity and is also aimed at not prejudicing any appeal. Part 2 was held back pending an appeal.
What does this mean for you?
This is the first challenge to the FCA's approach to publicising enforcement since it published its updated version of ENFG in June 2025. The ruling illustrates that the FCA can, in appropriate and genuinely exceptional cases, name firms during investigations where it believes that doing so is necessary to protect consumers or the market and where an anonymised announcement would not effectively achieve those aims. If there is no robust alternative that delivers equivalent consumer clarity, attempts to prevent naming will face a high bar.
We understand that the firm has applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.
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.
