The Tribunal made a number of criticisms of the FCA’s handling of the case, including the submission of late evidence and in the handling of a press statement.
In a decision notice published in November 2013, the FCA set out plans to fine Clive Rosier £10,000 over advice on unregulated collective investment schemes, stating that he "lacked skill, care and diligence and did not communicate properly with his clients".
On 21 May, the Tribunal upheld the FCA’s decision to impose a financial penalty of £10,000 on Mr Rosier, the director of a financial advice firm called Bayliss & Co Limited.
The Tribunal made a number of findings that Mr Rosier failed to comply with his regulatory obligations, and also found that Mr Rosier’s breaches demonstrated "systemic and cultural failings in the way he managed Bayliss’ business and dealt with its clients" as well as a dismissive approach to the importance of compliance with the Authority’s regulatory standards.
The Tribunal found there would be a risk to investors if Mr Rosier was permitted to perform a significant influence function.
However Rosier said that the press release was "wholly misleading and damaging to him and Bayliss".
Judge Herrington concluded that there should be detailed but clear written guidance, prepared by Enforcement having consulted the press office, as to the tone and content of material publicising decision notices, and that this guidance should adequately explain the difference between decision notices and final notices.
In a statement, the FCA said:
"When the FCA published the Decision Notices in this case, they were sent by email to a small number of media outlets with a short statement. This statement contained a number of inaccuracies, including a headline and quote that did not accurately reflect the findings in the Decision Notices, failed at its beginning to emphasise the provisional nature of the Decision Notices and did not comply with the protocol set out previously by the Tribunal. This protocol requires us to make clear that the matter has been referred to the Tribunal so that the subjects can present their case and the Tribunal can determine the appropriate action, and to make it clear that our findings reflect our belief as to what happened.
"We have apologised to Mr Rosier, reviewed our processes to prevent this happening again, have already taken forward some of the recommendations in the Tribunal’s decision and will take forward the rest."
