[2025] UKUT 00185 (TCC)

In Ferreira at [20], Snowden LJ confirmed that the phrase “knowingly concerned” required that the person must have:

The issue before the Court of Appeal was what was meant by “knowledge of the facts”.

In its judgment, the Court overruled the Judge’s finding that this requirement was met if the person had “knowledge that a communication has been made which invites or induces investment activity or claims management activity, and knowledge that this is in the course of business”. Instead, the person had also to have knowledge of all the elements which make up the contravention, including knowledge of the factual circumstance that prevents a potentially relevant disapplication from operating. In Ms Ferreira’s case, she did not know the Company’s communications had not been validly approved, and so she was not “knowingly concerned”.

The ratio of the judgment thus endorses the decision in Scandex as to what is required for a person to be “knowingly concerned”, namely that the person has to have knowledge of all the elements which make up the contravention. There is no suggestion that any sort of “personal wrongdoing” is additionally required.