The Upper Tribunal has dismissed a litigant’s bid to block publication of a judgment already handed down to all parties in final form. In Moneybrain Limited v The Financial Conduct Authority, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Anne Redston, said the hearing had already been held in public – with no objection from any party – and it was not in the  interests of justice to delay publishing the ruling.

Cryptocurrency provider Moneybrain had applied to the FCA for registration as a cryptoasset exchange provider but was refused because of the regulator’s ‘fit and proper person’ test. The company than made a suspension application – effectively trying to postpone the refusal – until the outcome of an appeal.

Redston decided to dismiss the application, emailing her judgment to the tribunal clerk in September with instructions to issue it to the parties and arrange for it to be published on the National Archives’ new case law website.

Before that publication, Moneybrain made the privacy application, saying this was an interim issue, pointing out that no information had yet been disseminated to the wider public, and arguing that publicity might threaten its business and thus would be unfair.

The judge said the judgment became ‘public’ once it was handed down to the parties, and it was therefore too late to direct that it could not be published. In addition, as the hearing itself had been in public, any person could apply for a copy of the transcript and/or copies of material referred to, including the decision notice.

She said that Moneybrain needed to provide ‘cogent evidence’ that publication of the judgment would cause it disproportionate damage, and it had failed to do this.

‘Statements that publication of the judgment “potentially poses an existential threat” to Moneybrain and connected companies who “may be threatened” and so suffer “potential damage” are, instead, mere assertions as to possibilities and probabilities without any particularisation,’ she added.

The applicant had suggested the delay in publishing any interim judgment would be ‘relatively short’ because the hearing of the initial appeal was being expedited. But the judge calculated that the total delay between the handing down of September’s decision and its publication was likely to be nine months, which was a reason for publishing the decision now.

She also said ‘for completeness’ that, contrary to Moneybrain’s submissions, the judgment contained no findings as to the company's probity.