Fenech & Anor v Financial Conduct Authority (FINANCIAL SERVICES - whether to uphold Prohibition Orders - whether to impose penalties - quantum of disgorgement - other computational matters) [2026] UKUT 281 (TCC) (27 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal upheld the FCA’s Prohibition Orders against Richard Brian Fenech and Heather Imogen Dunne, but reduced the financial penalties substantially. It found the FCA had miscalculated income and benefits, rejected arguments for remittal or redrafting of the prohibition decisions, and directed the FCA to recalculate penalties to £16,046 for Mr Fenech and £41,230 for Ms Dunne.

Key points

• Parties: Richard Brian Fenech and Heather Imogen Dunne v Financial Conduct Authority in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
• Holding: Prohibition Orders were upheld; the References on that issue were dismissed.
• Penalties: original penalties of £270,646 (Fenech) and £399,817 (Dunne) were reduced after the FCA accepted miscalculations in income and benefits.
• Disgorgement: the Tribunal held disgorgement should be limited to 18% of benefits for Ms Dunne, matching its finding that at least 18% of clients received unsuitable advice.
• Interest: the Tribunal declined to apply interest to the disgorgement amounts on the specific facts.
• Reasoning: the Tribunal said DEPP guidance is not binding but must be applied flexibly and with due regard to the circumstances.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no sanctions or export-control issues are addressed; the case is a financial-services enforcement decision with implications for regulatory prohibition and penalty methodology.

Why it matters

For compliance and enforcement teams, the decision shows the Tribunal will uphold prohibition outcomes even where it materially disagrees with parts of the regulator’s reasoning, while still tightly policing penalty calculations. That makes it relevant to sovereign risk and conduct-risk monitoring because it reinforces FCA willingness to impose career bans and highlights how evidential weaknesses can sharply reduce monetary exposure.

Implications

Firms and individuals facing FCA action should treat prohibition risk separately from penalty quantum: a win on some factual issues may not dislodge a ban. The judgment also underscores the need to challenge disgorgement, interest, and Step 2 inputs with granular evidence, because the Tribunal is willing to depart from FCA methodology where the figures overstate the actual benefit or misconduct.