Discretionary approval meaning

The suitability obligation All authorised firms are subject to a suitability obligation, which requires them to take reasonable steps to ensure that any personal recommendations, or decisions to trade, are suitable for their clients. The suitability obligation applies to: firms providing investment advisory services, and firms providing discretionary portfolio management services Firms providing non‑advised investment services will instead be subject to the appropriateness obligation (see Practice Note: Appropriateness). Firms must gather the information ‘necessary’ about their clients in respect of their: knowledge and experience in the investment field relevant to the type of investment or service, financial situation, and investment objectives For more information on the suitability obligation, see Practice Note Suitability. When does the obligation to provide a suitability report apply? In certain circumstances, firms are required to provide suitability reports to their clients under COBS 9.4...

SM&CR Checklist—SMF approvals: what to do when things go wrong The Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SM&CR) obliges authorised firms to seek approval from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and/or the Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) before appointing an individual to carry out a senior manager function (SMF). As part of that process, the regulator may invite the candidate to interview. Interviews are discretionary rather than a standard step in the SMF approval pathway. This Checklist supports SMF candidates and their firms (which submit the SMF application on the candidate’s behalf) in spotting, managing and responding to issues that arise during an SMF interview or after it, including receipt of a ‘minded to refuse’ letter or a decision by the regulator(s) to refuse the application. This Checklist should be read in conjunction with: SM&CR Checklist—preparing for SMF interviews and Practice Note: SM&CR—SMF interviews for regulatory approval. What is meant by ‘things going wrong’? Problems may emerge at several points during the interview process...

Folds Farm Trustees Ltd and another company v Cutts and others [2024] EWHC 12 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This claim illustrates trustees seeking the court’s approval for a decision in category 2 of Public Trustee v Cooper [2001] WTLR 901 (not reported by LexisNexis®UK), on the basis that the step was considered ‘particularly momentous’. There was no meaningful uncertainty about the extent of the trustees’ powers, and they had already determined how they intended to use them. Points of practical note for practitioners included: At a directions hearing, the court permitted reliance on updated expert evidence and, unusually, ordered the trustees’ witnesses (their directors) to attend the final hearing for cross-examination. At the final hearing, the Master observed, in the context of valuing real property, that appointments out of assets held on discretionary trusts are fundamentally different from cases involving absolute vested interests in capital. In the latter, testing the open market and securing the best price reasonably obtainable is...

Original news Mr N (CAS-97668-M6M1) —18 March 2025 Summary The Pensions Ombudsman dismissed a grievance concerning discretionary pension uplifts. Under the Scheme’s provisions, a pre‑1997 pension could be increased by the trustee, but only with the employer’s agreement. The employer declined to consent, pointing to the Scheme’s funding position. Without that approval, the trustee could not grant an increase. As the employer had followed an appropriate procedure when reaching its conclusion, the Pensions Ombudsman would not overturn that outcome. This matter highlights the significance of proper process in any decision‑making. What were the facts? Mr N was a pensioner member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain Staff Pension Scheme (the Scheme)...

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection Elderly and vulnerable clients UK taxes for Private Client HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Regulatory compliance for Private Client Insolvency—Private Client Digital assets and cryptoassets International Question of the week Additional Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Useful information Probate Third-party disclosure refused in probate dispute (Liebenthal v Liebenthal) The Chancery Division declined an application by the first and third defendants for third party disclosure from the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations Beis Din (the Beth Din), in probate proceedings concerning the estate of Chaye Liebenthal. The claimant, Aron Liebenthal, aimed to propound the 2005 Will, whereas the first and third defendants counterclaimed to advance a 2017 Declaration said to revive a 1990 Will...

What must a DPA contain? The statutory rules defining the contents of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) appear in paragraph 5 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (CCA 2013). They prescribe two mandatory requirements and seven suggested terms; the latter are indicative rather than exhaustive, and the parties may agree further suitable provisions. The list of suggested terms is expressly non-exhaustive. Accordingly, the basis of the DPA and its detailed contents should be expressed with clarity, set out clearly and simply, and then put before the court for its consideration and approval. The decision in Guralp Systems Ltd v Director of the Serious Fraud Office highlights the consequences of failing to articulate DPA terms plainly and succinctly. Other appropriate terms may likewise be incorporated by agreement. Mandatory terms of a DPA Every DPA must include a Statement of Facts relating to the alleged offence. That statement can, but need not, record admissions by the organisation; this is not compulsory. See further below: DPA—Statement...

The court's power to rectify A claim for rectification is not, strictly speaking, a probate claim, but it falls under that wider category as an extension of a want of knowledge and approval claim where a mistake has arisen in the drafting of a Will. For deaths after 31 December 1982, section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982) allows rectification. The court may amend a Will if satisfied it is framed in a way that does not give effect to the testator’s intentions because of: a clerical error; or a failure to comprehend his instructions, and can order changes so the Will achieves those intentions. Despite the affirmative tenor of that provision, this rectification power is discretionary, and the circumstances in which it applies are set out in AJA 1982, ss 20(2)–20(4). Under section 20(2), an application for an order under this section shall not, save with the permission of the court, be made after six months...

SM&CR—SMF interviews for regulatory approval This Practice Note sets out how the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and/or the Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) may deploy interviews as part of the approval process for those seeking to perform senior manager functions (SMFs) at authorised firms under the UK regulators’ Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SM&CR). It confirms that interviews are a discretionary tool within the SMF approval pathway and highlights when SMF candidates are most likely to be asked to attend. It also offers practical guidance for SMF candidates and their firms on preparing for interview, including frequent areas of focus, how the regulators approach external versus internal candidates, and additional points for candidates at dual-regulated firms. This Practice Note should be read together with: SM&CR Checklist—preparing for SMF interviews, which provides a practical framework to support candidates and firms in preparing across different SMF roles SM&CR Checklist—SMF approvals: what to do when things go wrong, which helps candidates and firms identify, manage and respond to...