ICS fights for its life in court battle
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.NIC CICUTTI
A safety net for victims of fraud and bad advice was facing a critical battle for survival yesterday as a leading insurer began a High Court challenge not to pay towards the scheme's running costs.
Sun Life argued the levy it was being asked to pay towards the Investors Compensation Scheme was illegal because the company was not liable for the share of the bill demanded.
Charles Flint QC, for the insurer, said: "Sun Life is a strong supporter of the principles behind the ICS and has made substantial contributions to it in the past... But this application raises an issue of principle."
His comments opened the legal battle between Sun Life and its watchdog, the Personal Investment Authority, over whether it must pay towards the pounds 16m levy to the ICS. The company is challenging the PIA at a judicial review in London.
Mr Justice Sedley, the judge hearing the case, was told yesterday the argument centred on whether, as Sun Life claims, members of a regulator are answerable only for defaults incurred by fellow-members.
The PIA, backed by the City's most senior watchdog, the Securities and Investment Board, argues that it has the discretion to widen the net further.
But Mr Flint claimed the PIA, could not be held responsible for previous years' liabilities incurred by companies that never joined it.
The case continues today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments