Sarah Clarke QC acts for the Dubai Financial Services Authority in ground breaking enforcement case against Al Ramz Capital LLC and its former Head of IT – Najim Al Attar for serious failures to provide complete and accurate information relevant to a DFSA investigation which commenced in 2014.

The DFSA imposed a fine of USD 205,200 (AED 753,084) on Al Ramz, which is a recognised member of NASDAQ Dubai. Al Ramz is also required to pay USD 100,000 (AED 367,000) towards the DFSA’s investigation costs. In addition, the DFSA imposed a fine of USD 32,640 (AED 119,789) against Mr Al Attar.

The DFSA’s action follows an investigation that initially focused on trading on NASDAQ Dubai by Al Ramz and others, which the DFSA suspected may have breached Part 6 of the DIFC Markets Law 2012. The DFSA later expanded the scope of its investigation to include further suspected contraventions, including obstructing the DFSA’s investigation and providing information which was false, misleading and deceptive.

While the trading in question was eventually found not to be in breach of Part 6 of the DIFC Markets Law 2012, the DFSA found that during the investigation Al Ramz had failed to comply fully with requirements to provide the DFSA with information relevant to the investigation and deal with the DFSA in an open and cooperative manner.  Al Ramz’s misconduct included:

• misleading the DFSA about the users of computers used by two Al Ramz brokers at the time of the trading in question;
• selectively withholding from the DFSA certain material communications (including emails and recordings of telephone calls) relevant to certain trading;
• failing to disclose that a member of Al Ramz’s senior management was centrally involved in such trading; and
• failing to disclose close family relationships between the Al Ramz client connected to the trading and certain senior members of Al Ramz’s staff, including its senior management.

In relation to Mr Al Attar, the DFSA found that he:

• engaged in conduct intended to obstruct the DFSA in the exercise of its powers, without having a reasonable excuse for doing so; and
• provided information that was false or misleading to the DFSA, and concealed information where the concealment of such information was likely to mislead the DFSA.

Mr Al Attar’s misconduct included:

• reconfiguring computers of two Al Ramz brokers and providing these to the DFSA while claiming falsely that they were the computers used by the brokers at the time of the trading in question. In so doing, Mr Al Attar attempted to mislead the DFSA into believing they were the computers used by the brokers when that was not the case;
• altering the email account of one of the Al Ramz brokers in an attempt to remove all email messages sent or received by that broker for the relevant period and conceal them from the DFSA;
• deleting relevant electronic data collected during a DFSA inspection visit;
• refusing to provide the DFSA with certain relevant electronic data stored on Al Ramz’s IT system, and instructing a junior member of Al Ramz’s IT team not to provide the DFSA with such data; and
• providing false and misleading information to the DFSA regarding Al Ramz’s IT system.

The case is significant because it is one of the first Enforcement cases under the new DFSA Enforcement process and demonstrates that the DFSA treats such failures seriously and is prepared to pursue firms and individuals who fall short of its expectations even where the conduct which gave rise to the original investigation does not itself result in disciplinary action.

Sarah Clarke QC acted for the DFSA throughout the original market abuse investigation and subsequent obstruction case and represented the DFSA at the Decision Making Committee hearing.  The case demonstrates the increasingly International focus of our Business and Specialist Crime Team.

For further information click here: DFSA, The National and ZAWYA

HH Peter Rook QC has today handed down his findings of fact and conclusions in respect of the inquest into the death of Private Sean Benton, a trainee soldier, at Deepcut Army Barracks on 9 June 1995.

He has concluded that Sean died as a result of suicide when, he shot himself with a SA80 Rifle causing five wounds to the chest.  HH Peter Rook QC has found that no third party fired any shots during the incident that led to Sean’s death.   The full Record of Inquest can be seen here.

Bridget Dolan QC and Jamie Mathieson have been assisting HH Peter Rook QC as Counsel to the Inquest.   John Beggs QC and Cecily White represented Surrey Police, instructed by Hannah Walsh of Weightmans, and Paul Spencer was instructed by Judith Duffin of Clyde & Co on behalf of the Camp GP.

Michael Mylonas QC, Sophia Roper and Claire Watson in ground-breaking case in which a dying man’s wife was permitted by the Court to have his sperm retrieved, stored and used without his express written consent, under a Mental Capacity Act application: Michael was instructed  for the Applicant by Vardags, Claire by the hospital and Sophia by the Official Solicitor.

Click here to see press coverage on the case, and here for our recent blog post on the UK Medical Decision Law Blog.

In Henderson -v- Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust Angus and Cecily  argued that Ms Henderson, who was convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility in 2011, should not be allowed to recover damages relating to the consequences of killing her mother. The case raises important questions about the defence of illegality in tort and in clinical negligence actions. Judgment was reserved by the Court of Appeal.

Fiona Paterson has been appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown, commencing on 1 September 2018.

Described as “an absolute star” by Chambers & Partners, Fiona is ranked by the directories as a leading junior in the fields of Administrative and Public Law, Court of Protection and Regulatory Law. Specialising in difficult, complex and sensitive medical and welfare cases concerning substantial claims, regulatory issues and treatment decisions, Fiona acts both for and against the state in matters involving fundamental human rights. Fiona has appeared in various landmark cases before both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal over the last three years.

John and Cecily recently represented the Commissioner in the inquest into the death of Rashan Charles before HM Coroner Mary Hassell at St Pancras Coroner’s Court. Rashan was restrained by police in Hackney and a plastic package was later retrieved from his mouth. The jury found the death to have been accidental and that Rashan’s life had not been salvageable prior to the point at which a medical emergency was identifiable.

See BBC News coverage here.

We are delighted to announce that Emma Sutton has decided to move to Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, expanding and enhancing our Court of Protection, Public and Administrative Law, Education and Inquest and Inquiries teams.

Emma, described by The Legal 500 as “a tough negotiator, who is excellent with lay clients…[with] an impeccable court manner”, is the ninth established practitioner to join us in the last ten months. Her arrival reflects our ongoing commitment to building the expertise and service we offer to our instructing solicitors and lay-clients.

Catherine Calder, Joint Chief Executive, comments “Emma’s addition to our first-class Court of Protection team further expands our expertise in this field and substantially advances our ability to represent clients in Property and Affairs cases, as well as Health and Welfare. Together with the recent arrival of Dijen Basu QC and Matthew Holdcroft, it gives Chambers’ solicitors greater public law expertise to call on, as well as significantly strengthening our Education and Inquest and Inquiries teams”.

Emma’s profile, setting out full details of her practice, will be available shortly.

On 20th March 2018, the Supreme Court refused the parents of Alfie Evans permission to appeal against the decisions of the Court of Appeal and Hayden J regarding the withdrawal of Alfie’s ventilator support.

Alfie was born in May 2016 and is now 22 months old.  By the time of his four month check Alfie’s parents and health visitor had noticed that he was not meeting his developmental milestones.  By December 2016 Alfie had lost some of his previously learned skills and was admitted to Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool – a tertiary unit and centre of excellence for the treatment of severely ill children.

During 2017 Alfie’s condition continued to deteriorate and he was given ventilator support.  Initially it was possible to wean him from the ventilator support but that ceased in May 2017 and he has required constant and increasing support with his breathing ever since.  Serial MR imaging demonstrated progressive destruction of Alfie’s brain matter and both his treating and the visiting clinicians concluded that he was suffering from an untreatable neuro-degenerative disorder.  In addition to the underlying condition, Alfie also suffers from uncontrollable seizure activity.

The treating team at Alder Hey obtained external reviews and also provided facilities for the family’s independent experts to assess.  All the treating clinicians and medical experts were unanimous in agreeing that Alfie’s condition was untreatable and that his seizure activity could not be controlled.

In those unusual and tragic circumstances the Trust and the UK independent experts concluded that continued active treatment provided no benefit to Alfie.  His parents did not accept the medical evidence and the case was brought before Hayden J.  After a seven day hearing in which he carefully considered all the evidence he concluded that, in view of Alfie’s condition and the unanimous medical evidence, continued treatment was not in his best interests.

Alfie’s parents unsuccessfully appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal who handed down judgment on 6th March.  Alfie’s parents then sought permission to appeal from the Supreme Court.  Their primary argument was that the Court  should not intervene in a parent’s choice as to medical treatment unless a threshold of significant harm had been established.

This echoed the basis of the appeal in the Gard case in 2017.  In Alfie’s case the argument was advanced on the basis that his parents were victims of discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR.  In refusing permission to appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed that the test in medical treatment cases was the child’s best interests, describing this as “the gold standard”.

It is possible that Alfie’s parents will now seek to bring the matter before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg alleging that the actions of the UK Courts in rejecting their case on discrimination is an infringement of their rights by the state.

Michael Mylonas QC has represented Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust throughout.  Susanna Rickard was instructed as junior on the appeal to the Supreme Court. Sophia Roper was instructed by CAFCASS to act for the Child’s Guardian appointed by the Court.

Please click here for a copy of the judgment.