The High Court confirms a Tribunal decision that the appointment of directors of insurance companies can be regularised retrospectively. It underscores that section 14 of the Insurance Act does not require the Prudential Authority’s pre-approval.
The judgment confirms that the Tribunal acted within its authority when it reduced a penalty imposed by the Prudential Authority on two state-owned insurers.
The FSP used an email address it obtained from a credit bureau, but the rep denied this address belonged to her.
The Financial Services Tribunal dismisses a reconsideration application by a former representative who claimed a client e-signed documents in person.
The agent repeatedly deviated from the approved product script. Previous warnings and documented missteps played a key role in the decision.
The case highlights that debarment is reserved for instances of clear, intentional breaches of integrity, not mere negligence.
FSPs must ensure their representatives operate strictly within their authorised product categories and according to the client’s mandate.
The Tribunal finds the FSP skipped critical steps, including notifying the representative and giving her an opportunity to respond.
The decisions show that even thwarted attempts to breach confidentiality signal a critical lapse in integrity.
The arrest of two more former Steinhoff executives ties back to a fraudulent scheme involving a handwritten note by Markus Jooste.
The High Court confirms the Prudential Authority’s right to challenge Tribunal decisions while affirming the limits of retrospective penalties.
The ruling underscores that disputes over unapproved disability claims underwritten by insurers through employer-held policies must be addressed with employers and insurers.
The Tribunal’s ruling highlights that following the correct process is as important as addressing misconduct in the financial services sector.
The case illustrates how discrepancies in disclosure can undermine an individual’s suitability for a key role, resulting in the rejection of a licence application.
The Tribunal’s decision underscores that financial advisers’ duties are limited to the specific terms of their engagement.
The Ombud failed to investigate key facts around the broker’s alleged negligence in communicating an essential policy requirement.
The huge penalties imposed by the FSCA and the Prudential Authority raise questions about the clarity and consistency of the factors influencing these fines.
