Chris Snell successful in second appeal

Dhillon -v- (1) Orchard (2) Orchard [2026] EWCA Civ 346

The Court of Appeal allowed a second appeal from the order of Mr Justice Miles (which was itself made on appeal).

The Court of Appeal held (contrary to Miles J’s earlier judgment) that s26 FSMA: (i) does not create a mere equity; and (ii) does not provide a remedy against third parties who are not the original counterparties to the transaction which offends the general prohibition.

This is, clearly, important clarification concerning the scope of the remedies created by s26 FSMA. It also clarifies a point of law which had not been decided previously.

Christopher Snell successfully represented the Appellant via direct access