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

Mr Dalipi’s submission is essentially a request for this Tribunal to give him the fair hearing he feels the Authority denied him, and to look at the Application without setting him up to fail. He went down the route of asking the Authority to refuse the Application so that he could challenge that decision before an independent tribunal and get the fair hearing he thinks the Authority (and in particular the caseworker) was refusing to give him. Again and again, in evidence and submissions we came back to the Call, where Mr Dalipi said he felt bullied and trapped with the caseworker creating stumbling blocks. He says that he is happy to cooperate with a process he considers reasonable, proportionate, and fair; he is not asking for special treatment. Finally, he says that he has knowledge and expertise in his industry and authorisation is important to help him grow his business.

The Authority’s submission is more developed and links the reasons for refusing the Application to the Threshold Conditions. We will address the Authority’s points as we review each of the Threshold Conditions.

Before we do that, we remind ourselves that the question we need to answer is whether the Decision was one which was reasonably open to the Authority. The question is not whether we agree with the Decision or whether, still acting reasonably, we or the Authority could have reached a different decision. Mr Dalipi expressed the hope that we would give the Applicant a fair hearing and look at the Application without setting it up to fail. We hope that Mr Dalipi feels that he has had a fair hearing. We would be very disappointed if he did not. However, Parliament has given the task of regulating the financial services industry to the Authority. Even if we were to conclude that the Decision was not one which was reasonably open to the Authority, we could not substitute our own decision (and effectively approve the Application); our power in such a case is limited to remitting the Decision to the Authority (effectively for it to reconsider) with such directions as we consider appropriate.

We should also remind ourselves of what the Authority actually decided. Its Decision was to refuse the Application because it was not satisfied (as FSMA requires the Authority to be before it approves an authorisation application) that the Applicant (i) met and would continue to meet the Suitability Threshold Condition, (ii) had appropriate resources in relation to the regulated activities that it seeks to carry on (the Appropriate Resources Threshold Condition), and (iii) was capable of being effectively supervised, having regard to all the circumstances (the Effective Supervision Threshold Condition).

We turn now to consider the Authority’s conclusions as to whether the Applicant had met the Threshold Conditions we are concerned with.