Regulator wins bid to recover appeal costs

Ayrshire-based James Perman & Company appealed to the upper tribunal on the regulator’s decision to cancel its permissions in June 2010 for refusing to allow the FSA to conduct a supervisory visit at the firm’s offices.

The upper tribunal dismissed the appeal on 25 August 2011 and ruled that the referral proceedings brought by James Perman had been “unreasonable”.

It then directed the FSA to cancel the firm’s permission because it had failed to co-operate with the FSA. The was actioned on 19 September 2011.

The FSA then applied to the upper tribunal to recover its costs, arguing that James Perman had acted unreasonably in pursuing the tribunal proceedings after the FSA had offered a reasonable settlement to the firm in November 2010.

The upper tribunal agreed that James Perman acted “unreasonably given the fair terms of the offer” and ordered the firm to pay the FSA’s legal costs of £8665.

In its decision statement, the upper tribunal said the firm’s “rejection of, what in our view is a reasonable offer on the part of the FSA, amounted to unreasonable conduct and caused the FSA to incur the costs”.

Will Amos, head of retail enforcement for the FSA, said: “This decision emphasises the importance of ensuring that upper tribunal process and the resources of the FSA are not used unnecessarily. James Perman had acted unreasonably in refusing the FSA’s settlement and choosing to make a referral to the tribunal.

“By making the costs order against James Perman, the upper tribunal has endorsed the FSA’s message that our resources and the tribunal process must not be misused.”