On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 490

This appeal considered what the meaning is of the words “any of the reasons contained in [a notice] relates to a matter which identifies a person” contained in the Financial Services Markets Act 2000, ss 393(1) and (4). The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4 to 1, allowed the FCA’s appeal. A person is identified in a notice under s 393 “if he is identified by name or by a synonym for him, such as his office or job title”, and that in the case of a synonym it must be apparent from the notice itself that it could only apply to one person and that person must be identifiable from information which is either in the notice or publicly available elsewhere. The majority of the Court gave five reasons for this narrower reading of ‘identifies’, including that there must be a focus on fairness and that the notices are directed at the general public, not industry specialists. On this basis the Supreme Court held that CIO London management did not equate with or identify Mr Macris, and that no information had been shown to exist in the public domain which, when read with the notice, identified him with CIO London Management.

For judgment, please download: [2017] UKSC 19
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (13 Oct 2016 morning session) (13 Oct 2016 afternoon session)