A High Court Judge held a mopping up hearing earlier today to clarify issues following a trial in May 2022.
The mouseinthecourt has previously covered days 1 & 3 of this action by the Financial Conduct Authority against London Property Investments (UK) Limited and its directors.
Trial Day 1: “London Property Investments Trial begins as FCA take action“
Trial Day 2 (Per Law360): “Investment Co. Accused Of Misleading Customers At FCA Trial“
Trial Day 3: “London Property Investments Trial – Day 3“
Judge Richard Smith began todays remote hearing by explaining that following the trial in May, and whilst preparing his judgment, a number of queries had arisen.
These queries had been circulated to the parties and we were told the FCA had provided written answers. The defendants had previously been debarred from participating in the trial.
Barrister Mark Fell KC, representing the FCA, said he would run through a document that the FCA had prepared to answer the questions posed.
Unfortunately, the answers provided were unfathomable without access to the underlying document:
“Harrington Thomas the answer is yes and we’ve provided a reference. With regards Bowman regards Soho the answer is yes“.
Submissions were also made by Mr Fell on whether the FCA can rely on previous findings of fact made during proceedings at the County Court.
Towards the end of this 77-minute-hearing the Judge explained that the court was aiming to provide a draft judgment to the parties by the end of the month. It’s a “little bit more than crossing T’s and dotting I’s but I’m still working to that schedule” we were told.
Live tweeting
“I hope you’re not live whatsapping or live tweeting because you’ll need my permission for that” the judge somewhat jokingly told Mr Fell, who was awaiting instructions on his phone.
An e-mail received yesterday afternoon, presumably sent to all those who had requested the MS teams link to observe, contained this paragraph (with my bold):
Please also note that:
You are reminded that although this hearing is a remote hearing the usual rules apply for hearings in court as if this was an in person hearing and that it is strictly forbidden for you to record this hearing in full or part, take screenshots, send live tweets or to stream any part of the hearing.
On a point of principle I replied asking “Can you advise which rule prevents live tweeting please?” as this seemed contrary to the guidance issued by the aptly named Lord Judge in 2011.
Judge Richard Smith considered this comment at the start of the hearing and he confirmed that “my permission is not needed for a member of the media or a legal commentator” to tweet.
I’m not sure why the court had indicated that a complete ban seemed to be in existence.
In 1999 Master of the Rolls Lord Woolf warned about “the need to be vigilant” arising “from the natural tendency for the general principle [of open justice] to be eroded and for exceptions to grow by accretion“.
I feel it is important that derogations from Open Justice are challenged for this exact reason.
Case Details
Claim No Bl-2020-001003
In The High Court Of Justice
Business And Property Courts Of England And Wales
Business List, Financial Services And Regulatory Sub-list (Chd)
Between:
The Financial Conduct Authority
(A Company Limited By Guarantee)
Claimant
-and-
(1) London Property Investments (U.K) Limited (Trading As LPI Emergency Property Finance)
(2) NPI Holdings Limited
(3) Anthony Kafetzis (Also Known As Anthony Stevens, Tony Stevens, George Stasis, Anthony Stephens, Anthonio Georgiou And Andreas Georgiou)
(4) Daniel Stevens
Defendants
Mouse in the Court 