Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
JONATHAN CROW QC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT) ____________________
NICHOLAS PEACOCK (instructed by The Financial Services Authority) for the Petitioner The Respondent appeared in person ____________________
4.1. Whether TIP has been conducting a regulated activity in breach of the general prohibition
"I/We apply for the number of shares stated above , I/We request that you send me/us a share certificate by post at my/our risk to the address given below for the number of shares in respect of which this application may be accepted . I/We understand that no application will be accepted unless and until payment in full for the shares has been made. I/We agree to accept a lower number of shares should the Offer be oversubscribed and the Directors exercise their discretion to scale down applications
(Regulated Activities) Order 2001, SI 2001/544 (as amended by SI 200 1/3544) ('the RAO'). Part II of' the RAO sets out specified activities which are regulated, whatever the property involved is. Part III of the RAO sets out specified investments. For present purposes, the relevant activity is defined in article 25 of the RAO. There are two alternative elements:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.