Briceamery Capital Ltd v The Financial Conduct Authority (FINANCIAL SERVICES - Decision Notice - Notice of Discontinuance - Costs application of £1.1m - whether Decision Notice was unreasonable - whether the Authority acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings - whether schedule of costs claimed was compliant - whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to award cost) [2026] UKUT 288 (TCC) (30 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal refused Briceamery Capital Ltd’s application for £1.122 million in costs against the Financial Conduct Authority. It held that issuing the Decision Notice cancelling BCL’s Part 4A permission was not unreasonable, that the Authority did not act unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings, and that costs would not have been awarded in any event because the schedule and discretion issues were not satisfied.

Key points

• Parties: Briceamery Capital Ltd v Financial Conduct Authority in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
• Holding: costs application refused; no costs order made against the FCA.
• Reasoning: the FCA’s Decision Notice was not unreasonable, and the FCA did not act unreasonably in defending/conducting the reference.
• The Tribunal also said it would not have awarded costs even if the threshold requirements had been met.
• Background involved a FOS award, alleged identity fraud, a Decision Notice cancelling BCL’s permission under FSMA s 55J(2), and subsequent discontinuance by the FCA.
• No direct sanctions or export-control issue is addressed; the case is about FCA enforcement, costs, and Tribunal discretion.

Why it matters

For sanctions, national security, and sovereign-risk audiences, the case shows how FCA enforcement can unwind when underlying misconduct is reassessed, but still not trigger an adverse costs order. It highlights the practical evidential burden on firms seeking to weaponize procedural or reasonableness arguments against regulators after discontinuance.

Implications

Compliance teams should treat regulator discontinuance as distinct from regulator error: even if enforcement is abandoned, that does not automatically support a costs recovery. In litigation strategy, parties challenging FCA action should be prepared to prove both unreasonableness and a compliant costs schedule; otherwise a post-discontinuance costs bid is likely to fail.