UT-2024-000094 - [2025] UKUT 00082 (TCC)

We should pause here and observe that we have reached our decision on the Reference with a sense of sadness. This is because we agree with Mr Macdonald’s comment made in the hearing that, as well as being entrepreneurial, Mr Dalipi is clearly a very intelligent and articulate man. It is a shame (to put it mildly) that the relationship between the Applicant (in reality, Mr Dalipi) and the Authority deteriorated to the point where Mr Dalipi felt that asking the Authority to refuse the Application and come to this Tribunal was the only way forward. It is much to be regretted that he did not step back, allow his anger at whatever happened on the Call to subside and proceed (even through gritted teeth) with the Application process.

The question Parliament has asked us to answer, however, is not whether this is a sorry state of affairs, but rather whether the Decision was one which was reasonably open to the Authority.

The Authority can only approve an authorisation request if it is satisfied that the Threshold Conditions are (and will continue to be) met; section 55B FSMA. We have examined the reasons why the Authority considered that the three Threshold Conditions in issue here were not met and have explained why we consider that their conclusion in each case was one which was reasonably open to them.

For the reasons set out above, we are satisfied that the Decision (that the Threshold Conditions were not met and therefore the Application could not be approved) was one which was reasonably open to the Authority.

The Reference is dismissed.