Prominence Technology Limited v Financial Services Authority: FIN/2004/0027
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery decision of Judge Bishopp and Member Hanson and Member Laing on 13 September 2005.
Read the full decision in .
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION � application for approval of named officer to perform all controlled functions � named officer considered not to be fit and proper � applications rejected � sole issue whether named officer fit and proper since if not, threshold conditions 4 and 5 not satisfied � named officer’s antecedent history � whether indicative that he is not fit and proper � failure to disclose antecedent history � whether indicative of lack of candour � tribunal not satisfied on evidence that named officer fit and proper � Authority’s decision upheld.
Updates to this page
Published 1 December 2016