UK Offence Report

Notification of relevant decision to the Authority

regulation 9(8) of The Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2004

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

8 An administrator, supervisor or liquidator who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with paragraph (2), (3), or (4) (as the case may be) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to

a fine not exceeding level

3 on the standard scale.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a person
Conduct
breaching the provision
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
An element of the offence, for the prosecution to prove

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

“Without reasonable excuse” here is an element of the offence rather than a defence, so its absence is for the prosecution to prove (R v Charles [2009] EWCA Crim 1570).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; qualified by reasonable excuse (an element; prosecution disproves once raised).

The defence, as drafted

8 An administrator, supervisor or liquidator who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with paragraph (2), (3), or (4) (as the case may be) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

What would breach regulation 9(8)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. On these words an offence is committed where a person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with paragraph (2), (3), or (4) (as the case may be).
  2. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2004.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Summary only — tried in a magistrates’ court
Maximum fine
£1,000
Standard scale
Level 3
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Status not determined
Made
12 February 2004
In force from
18 February 2004
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations revoke and replace in their entirety the Insurers (Reorganisation and Winding Up) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1102) which implemented the directive of the Parliament and the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of insurance undertakings (2001/17/EC) for all UK insurers except Lloyd's. They take account of the changes to insolvency law brought about by the commencement of the Enterprise Act 2002 and in particular the new administration procedures in the new Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Administration Orders Relating to Insurers) Order 2002 (SI 2002/1242) is amended to disapply paragraphs 14 and 22 of Schedule B1 because the reorganisation and winding up directive does not permit the appointment of an administrator other than by a court. These Regulations continue to provide that no winding up proceedings or voluntary arrangements in respect of EEA insurers can be undertaken in the UK except in the circumstances permitted by the Regulations. EEA reorganisation and winding up proceedings are to be recognised in the UK. Provisions are made for the exercise by EEA liquidators of their functions in the UK. Provision is made for the notification of reorganisation and winding up proceedings to competent authorities in other EEA Member States. Modifications are made to UK insolvency law in respect of notifications of various other matters including important stages in the relevant procedures and forms in which creditors in other EEA States may enter claims, to the FSA, EEA authorities and creditors. There are detailed changes from the provisions in the Regulations replaced with regard to administration and in particular to accommodate the ability for companies, Directors and holders of floating charges to appoint an administrator without a court order. The Regulations provide for the special order of priority for insurance debts created by the directive to apply to UK insurers and for the carrying through of the consequences of this in insolvency law. They make provision for application to insurers whose head office is outside the UK and the EEA. Provision is made for detailed amendment of existing secondary legislation including the insolvency rules in all UK jurisdictions dealing with the reorganisation or winding up of insurers.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person “commits an offence”; the provision states liability on summary conviction
Confidence
0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source