During the hearing, the judge did not determine whether the applicants had been the victims of a mis-selling and accepted the (un disputed) evidence of GMP that the broker was conducting its credit brokerage activities (including the treatment of clients) in the same manner while operating for Azure and as a designated representative for GMP. However, he rejected GMP`s request to align the proposed restriction on the scope of the ACF`s review of disadvantage by the ACF. Instead, the judge found that the CMA`s own restriction of taking into account the inconveniences of consumers only to determine whether consumers had been affected by the fact that the broker had not been allowed to take the existing validation order was too narrow and that the authority had illegitimately limited its discretion by this approach. He also stated that a provision of the FSMA (while it is fair and equitable to apply an otherwise unenforceable agreement) required the Authority to “examine all relevant factors and conduct a multifactorial assessment taking into account all the circumstances and to compensate for the various factors it considers relevant to the issue.” In this context, according to the judge, it is understandable that s.28A did not seek to limit the scope of the Authority`s investigation, but did not impose a list of factors to be considered. Although the inclusion of the issue of knowledge by the company concerned in Part 28A (6) of the question of the company`s knowledge of the regulatory status of the third party was a strong factor to assess in the balance sheet, the Authority was responsible for deciding on the appropriate weight to be given to various other factors. Therefore, any harm caused to consumers by the broker`s non-compliance should be weighed in the balance, as well as evidence of harm to the consumer in general, and it was up to the ACF to decide how much weight it would indulge in these different factors. During oral proceedings, counsel for the applicants and counsel for the ACF summarized the breaches of the manual that would result from evidence of the consumer inconvenience presented by the applicants, including violations of Principle 6 (Principle 6, Principle 6) (declaration of principle for companies) that requires a company to properly consider the interests of its clients and treat them fairly.