In a case that attracted national media coverage and emphasises the crucial importance of regulatory compliance and the highest standards of professional conduct in the financial services sector, the High Court dismissed a breach of contract claim brought by an investment manager.
- The Claimant, Mr Palmeri, was an associate and self-employed investment manager at the Defendant, Charles Stanley, for over 20 years. He was very successful. He employed his own team and considered them to be a self-contained business. In return for a proportion of their client revenue, the firm provided the team with office space, back-office services and the regulatory approvals they needed. The firm then decided to change its operating model and take a larger slice of their revenue, requiring him to sign up to new terms or leave.
- The Claimant was called into an unscheduled meeting at which he was presented with two envelopes to choose from; one containing the new terms and, the other, a letter terminating his engagement with immediate effect. He reacted very strongly to the ultimatum, alleging that he had been ambushed and proceeded to shout, swear and disparage the competence of the firm’s management, also questioning their integrity using very strong and personally abusive language.
- The Claimant asked to speak with his team before expressing his decision, which he was allowed to do. He then returned to the meeting stating that he would reluctantly accept the new terms. However, he was told that his earlier behaviour was so inappropriate and unacceptable that his relationship with the firm was irretrievably broken. The offer of the new terms was therefore withdrawn and his engagement terminated with immediate effect.
- After the Claimant left, the firm discovered a number of breaches by him of their internal compliance policies which, it argued, of themselves amounted to misconduct that would have justified summary termination of his engagement, even if his behaviour in the above meeting did not.
The claim failed. The Court held that the Claimant’s conduct (breach of the firm’s bullying and harassment policy and of its regulatory compliance manual) amounted to serious misconduct justifying summary termination. He was in breach of trust and confidence, which the Court held “is essential to the continuation of any contractual relationship, and cannot survive sustained, angry and open disaffection… In particular, disaffection of this sort is not compatible with a contract in which mutual trust and confidence is essential to the operation of [FCA] regulatory obligations.”
The Claimant acknowledged that his behaviour in the meeting was unacceptable but sought to contextualise it by saying that similar behaviour and vocabulary are commonplace in city finance and that his own passionate and volatile personality was well known and unfairly exploited by the firm. However, the Court concluded that “even if Charles Stanley had not had a sound basis for summary termination of contract going into that meeting, Mr Palmeri thereby provided one”.
Breaches of compliance rules
On investigation of the Claimant’s emails after he left, the firm discovered that he had engaged in loan activities with clients (involving five or six figure sums) which he had not disclosed to Charles Stanley. Mr Palmeri sought to explain these as personal matters between friends which had nothing to do with Charles Stanley and did not fall within their compliance policies.
- Conflicts of interest: The compliance manual required all associates to disclose to Charles Stanley details of any potential conflicts of interest. The Court agreed with Charles Stanley that there had been a substantial breach of internal reporting obligations. Regardless of whether the loans were with “friends who happen to be clients” or “clients who happen to be friends”, it is their status as clients which has legal consequences and which must come first.
- Complaints handling: One loan involved the Claimant giving an unhappy client and friend a personal, interest free loan of £10,000 as a way of dealing with an issue (the client had instructed him to sell some shares from his portfolio, which he failed to do). Rather than report this in accordance with the firm’s complaints handling procedure, again his position was that this was an entirely personal matter and that the client had never intended to have it formally reviewed. However, the Court held that the client’s unhappiness had triggered reporting obligations under the firm’s policy.
- Credit broking: In a matter involving a family, more than one member of which was a client of the firm, the Claimant proposed an ingenious solution involving one member of the family giving a loan to another, guaranteed by another member of the family on the security of their portfolio. All the parties were delighted. However, on investigation the firm found that the loan was a “regulated credit agreement” and that the activity of proposing it amounted to “credit broking” which is a regulated activity which the firm was not authorised to undertake. This was therefore in breach of the compliance manual which prohibited associates from undertaking such activity.
Ultimately, the Court found that Mr Palmeri had engaged in a “sustained and significant pattern of unreported potential conflicts of interest, a serious breach of complaint handling procedure, and evidence of unauthorised credit broking” which, individually and collectively entitled Charles Stanley to terminate his engagement with immediate effect.
The facts of this case occurred when the approved persons regime was still in force, before the extension of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR) across the financial services sector. With regulatory reference obligations now in play across the sector, and the making of fit and proper assessments outsourced to employers, the importance of observing the highest standards of professional conduct is greater than ever.
About the Authors
Andreas is a partner in our employment team. He has substantial litigation experience, with a particular focus on complex and high value employment and partnership disputes. Andreas has a particular interest in international and cross border employment law. He is a former president of the labour law commission of AIJA.
Özlem is a Professional Support Lawyer in our Employment Team. Before joining Kingsley Napley, Özlem was a Tutor and Team Leader at BPP University’s Law School, teaching on the Legal Practice Course. She taught the Employment Law, Business Law & Practice, Corporate Finance and Equity Finance modules of the course, as well as the skills modules of Interviewing & Advising and Professional Conduct & Regulation.
Professional Support Lawyer
Latest blogs & news
On 13 May 2022, the FCA published a final refusing Alexander Jon Compliance Consulting Ltd.’s (“AJCC”) application for authorisation to provide regulatory hosting services. There is no specific definition of what a regulatory host is, but the FCA generally regards it as a commercial arrangement whereby an authorised Principal firm appoints and oversees a number of unconnected Appointed Representatives (“ARs”) which operate across a range of markets.
In recent weeks, we have all been witness to the significant consequences of Vladamir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine – on a human and business level. Many financial institutions have shut-down their offices in Moscow with staff being let go or transferred, and there has also been a ripple effect over here in the City with an impact on banking jobs in London.
Moira Campbell and Jess Rice explain how employers can use flexibility as a way to attract and retain talent and promote workplace inclusivity.
The government made its long-awaited Freedom Day announcement on Monday 21 February 2022 and later the same day the Cabinet Office published its paper Living with Covid. As a result, the legal landscape for employers and employees changed significantly on 24 February 2022. The legal requirement to self-isolate following a positive test was removed. Self-isolation support payments went too. From 24 March, the special provisions for the payment of statutory sick pay for people with Covid-19 will be removed. So is this all good news for employers? Will this help those who have been charged with managing their workplaces through what remains of the pandemic? Does it mean freedom for them, or something less?
The default retirement age of 65 for employees is now only a distant memory, but mandatory retirement ages for LLP members remain common in professional services firms. In practice this can result in surprising and harsh outcomes.
Health secretary Sajid Javid has announced that the government will launch a consultation on removing vaccination as a condition of employment in health and all social care settings. The regulations requiring front line health workers to be vaccinated against Covid-19 (Coronavirus) as a condition of employment were due to come into force on 1 April 2022, which meant that unvaccinated staff had until 3 February 2022 to receive their first dose so that they could be fully vaccinated by April.
UK law has granted protection for those who raise concerns of potential wrongdoing in the workplace (whistleblowers) since 1999 through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Nick Ralph looks in detail at recent cases that have stemmed from the pandemic, including a refusal to attend work due to fear of contracting the virus.
One of the most topical issues regarding Covid-19 is that of vaccination and whether it should be mandatory.
Stories regarding big employers such as Citibank in the US mandating vaccination as a condition of employment (“no jab, no job”), the experience of great sports personalities such as Novak Djokovic and the decision of the Supreme Court in the US last week regarding laws mandating vaccination in the private sector, have all brought this issue into the spotlight.
So what is the legal position in the UK?
Richard Fox and Clodagh Hogan explain the questions people professionals should ask prior to conducting an inquiry into a dispute between employees
Investigations being conducted into workplace disputes have increased recently, possibly partly due to the rise in the number of sexual misconduct in the workplace allegations since the advent of the #MeToo movement.
Planning is key to workplace investigations and, if you are considering carrying out an investigation, ask yourself the following questions at the outset:
Much has been said about the proposed changes to the flexible working regime announced by the Government in its Consultation Paper on 23 September 2021.
It is the cliché that keeps on giving. Uncertainty remains the only certainty in this world of coronavirus and all its mutations.
At the time of writing, the number of cases in the UK of the new coronavirus variant, Omicron (technically, the B.1.1.529 variant), had reached 32. This is likely to increase given the current view among scientists that Omicron may be more infectious than the existing Delta variant of coronavirus and vaccinations less effective against it.
Richard Fox and Georgia Roberts explain why employers dealing with sexual misconduct claims should tread carefully when requiring an NDA to be included in a settlement agreement
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently launched a consultation on proposed amendments to its Listing Rules aimed at improving diversity and inclusion on company boards and executive committees. In particular, they are seeking feedback on proposals to require listed companies to publicly disclose annually whether they meet specific board diversity targets, including in relation to ethnicity, and to publish the composition of their boards and most senior level of executive management. To understand why such proposals are necessary, it is important to consider the current state of ethnic minority representation in UK leadership, why diversity at senior levels is so vitally important and what steps can employers take to improve diversity.
On 10 September 2021 the UK Government launched a Consultation on proposed changes to data protection law with the aim to “create a more pro-growth and pro-innovation data regime, whilst maintaining the UK’s world-leading data protection standards”. The proposals are designed to build on the UK’s existing data protection regime (contained in the General Data Protection Regulation (as it applies in the UK post-Brexit) (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018).
Progressive developments in immigration law have become a rare phenomenon, so the Home Office’s new policy – which halves the route to settlement for certain young people who have resided in the UK for more than half of their lives – is welcome news.
In 2012, as a recently elected MP, Kwasi Kwarteng co-authored “Britannia Unchained: Global Lessons for Growth and Properity”, a political pamphlet which championed risk-taking and innovation in the UK economy, and which ever since has led some to label him a fervent Brexiteer. Appointed as the Business Secretary in January 2021, only a few months later his department (BEIS) published one of the longest and most ambitious government White Papers in recent years.
Cate Maguire looks at how the Barder principle has been applied in cases involving 'known unknowns'
World Menopause Day was held on 18 October 2021. It is an opportunity to break the stigma and taboo that still exists around menopause and to encourage open dialogue about what is a natural and very significant transition in a woman’s life.
Coronavirus is having a serious impact on businesses and the global economy. Sadly, many businesses have been impacted to the extent that they have or will have to put cost-cutting measures in place. For some individuals this will result in their role being put at risk of redundancy.