The Guernsey Financial Services Commission and 2 others (Respondents) v Robin Fuller (Appellant) (Guernsey)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Linked cases
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0016

Jurisdiction

Guernsey

Parties

Appellant(s)

Robin Fuller

Respondent(s)

Guernsey Financial Services Commission

Adam Tattersall

Patrick Moroney

Issue

Can an appellate court make findings of fact, evaluative judgments, and proportionality assessments for itself under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)? Was article 6 ECHR breached in this case by delay and/or apparent bias? What is the correct approach to be applied by a court and a regulator in determining whether an individual is a “fit and proper person” to perform regulated functions?

Facts

The facts involve a decision by a regulator to impose penalties on company directors. The issues on appeal concern the lawfulness of the regulatory regime and the proper approach of appellate courts in relation to the regulator’s decision. The Providence Group had companies in various jurisdictions, including the United States and Guernsey. The Providence Group collapsed during August 2016 and the senior executives who were based in the United States were prosecuted and imprisoned there on the basis of the Providence Group having operated a Ponzi scheme. Mr Robin Fuller was a non-executive director for two of the companies in the Providence Group, Lumiere Fund Services Limited (“LFS”) and Providence Investment Management International Limited (“PIMIL”) between August 2015-August 2016. Mr Adam Tattersall was a director of PIMIL for around the same period. The Guernsey Financial Services Commission (“GFSC”) is the regulator for financial services in Guernsey. The GFSC undertakes the investigation into and takes enforcement action in respect of breaches of financial services laws and regulation in Guernsey under the powers set out in various regulatory laws. The GFSC appoints a senior decision maker (“SDM”) to make enforcement decisions on its behalf. The decision to impose sanctions must, by law, be made by the GFSC. The GFSC conducted an investigation into the parts of the Providence Group operating in Guernsey. By a report dated 23 October 2017, the GFSC’s enforcement division found that the appellants failed to meet the minimum criteria for licensing regulated entities under the regulatory framework. Mr Fuller’s conduct was held to be serious, and Mr Tattersall’s very serious. On 16 March 2020, the SDM (who had been appointed in November 2017, after the enforcement notice) provided a draft ‘Minded-To Notice’ proposing sanctions on the appellants. On 29 August 2020, the SDM issued a final ‘Minded-To Notice’, imposing the same penalties as in the draft and giving recipients 28 days to make written and oral representations. On 4 March 2021 the SDM, exercising the powers of GFSC, issued a decision which imposed sanctions on Mr Fuller and Mr Tattersall, including a fine, a prohibition order, and the making of a public statement (“the Decision”). The SDM’s determinations included: whether the relevant individuals were fit and proper; whether they were personally dishonest; where they acted with a want of integrity and/or probity; how serious their conduct was; the appropriateness and proportionality of any sanction. The appellants appealed the Decision to the Royal Court. The hearing occurred between 23 February 2022 and 4 March 2022. On 14 August 2024, the Bailiff of Guernsey allowed in part and refused in part the appeals as follows. All grounds of appeal were rejected. Some findings in respect of Mr Fuller and Mr Tattersall were upheld, including that they had failed to fulfil the minimum criteria for licensing. Other findings were set aside, and the sanctions imposed were accordingly set aside and remitted back to the GFSC for reconsideration. The GFSC appealed. Mr Fuller, Mr Tattersall and another cross appealed. The appeals were heard from 18-20 February 2025. On 3 October 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed the cross appeal on the sole ground that the length of time taken by the Bailiff to hand down judgment (over two years) was in breach of article 6 ECHR. The appellants appeal to the Board.