An unhappy coupling

The FSA and Northern Rock - where did it go wrong? Dr Nicholas Ryder

Three weeks after its election victory, the new Labour government announced in May 1997 that work would begin on the reform of the Financial Services Act 1986. The government sought to implement a new financial regulatory regime which would set basic standards and prevent systematic failure. The proposals were contained in the Financial Services and Markets Bill 1998, which contained three important features:

● The creation of a single financial regulatory authority, which would have a clearly defined set of statutory objectives, functions and powers;

● the historic role of the Bank of England was to be revised; and

● the principle of self-regulation was to be abandoned.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) provided a single statutory framework for the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Under the Act, the FSA regulates and authorises members of the regulated sector

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

An unhappy coupling

The FSA and Northern Rock - where did it go wrong? Dr Nicholas Ryder

● The creation of a single financial regulatory authority, which would have a clearly defined set of statutory objectives, functions and powers;

● the historic role of the Bank of England was to be revised; and

● the principle of self-regulation was to be abandoned.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap

A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’

NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads

Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design

NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?

Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle

NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children

A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings

NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown

A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996

Error message

An unhappy coupling

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Switalskis—Grimsby

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury