The FCA's Commitment To "Test And Use" Its Powers Pays Off In FCA v BlueCrest Capital

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal in FCA v BlueCrest Capital Management [2024] EWCA Civ 1125 reverses the Upper Tribunal's decision in BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP v FCA [2023] UKUT 00140 (TCC) (which we analysed in a previous article). The Court of Appeal found for the FCA, determining that the FCA was permitted to (a) amend its Statement of Case after the Decision Notice had been issued and (b) impose a redress scheme on a single firm pursuant to section 55L FSMA without reference to the four conditions (loss, causation, breach of regulatory duty, and actionability) set down in section 404 FSMA. What does this decision mean for financial service firms, particularly considering the FCA's Consumer Duty and evolving approach to enforcement? And, is this the end of this particular story?