By joining or renewing their membership, members agree to abide by the Code of Professional Conduct and by this Disciplinary Process if it is invoked.

Principles underlying the Disciplinary Process

Protection of the public

The public rely on actuaries to perform their skill with care and competence. This principle is at the heart of any professional disciplinary process, but the process must also be compatible with the law and the rights of members.

Natural justice, fairness and human rights

The principles of natural justice and fairness and articles of the European Convention on Human Rights shall apply in the Disciplinary Process.

Confidentiality

The principle of innocent unless proven guilty applies, and so everyone involved (including any Complainants) agree to protect the confidentiality of the accused actuary and any third parties.  The accused actuary may choose to waive part of their confidentiality and disclose that they are the subject of a complaint, its nature and the identity of any complainants.

Complainant is not a party to the process but will be kept informed

Complainants agree when submitting an allegation that they are not a party to the process and that the International Qualified Actuaries Group Limited takes over the allegation and investigates it.  Complainants will be kept informed as to progress and outcomes.

Burden of proof is on the prosecution, to the civil standard

the defence do not need to prove anything, the prosecution need to establish misconduct on the balance of probabilities (the civil standard of proof).

No moving of goal posts with regard to the membership contract

Unless changes made to the terms of membership during a membership year are clearly in the interests of an accused actuary, any such changes shall be disregarded with regard to the membership year in which any instance of misconduct is alleged to have occurred.

Equality of arms

The Disciplinary Process attempts to redress the balance between a professional body and a typically less well funded accused member, including in the following areas:

• the professional body often has access to legal advice at an earlier stage than the member
• the professional body often has access to more resources than the member, and in particular is able to bear legal costs more easily than the member
• if the professional body overreaches in a disciplinary complaint, there has often in practice been little adverse consequence for the professional body.

Allowance for membership fees having already funded a significant part of disciplinary cases

Professional membership fees include an element to fund disciplinary cases. Whilst it is right that members found guilty of misconduct should make a contribution to the costs incurred in their case (providing that no regulatory overreach has occurred), it would be double counting if they were asked to bear the whole of the costs incurred.

No fishing expeditions 

The professional body may not go looking for possible misconduct and must confine itself to investigating allegations made independently of itself. 

No mud flinging

Abuse happens if a professional body complains about multiple instances but misconduct is only found in half or just over half.  Traditionally there has been little deterrent against a professional body overreaching in this way. In the interests of natural fairness and justice, there must be significant adverse consequences for the prosecution case if the professional body overreaches e.g. by acting inconsistently, adding unwarranted charges or putting forward evidence that is weak or speculative.

Consistency in the case put forward (including with any previous disciplinary cases)

Except with the consent of both parties, or where new evidence comes to light that could not reasonably have been disclosed earlier, the prosecution may not materially change its case, and if changes are allowed, they must be disclosed to any panel with the reasons for the change. Except with the consent of both parties, or where new evidence comes to light that could not reasonably have been disclosed earlier, or if the case previously advanced was without the benefit of legal advice, the accused actuary may not materially change his or her case.  Unless the changes are due to new evidence coming to light that could not reasonably have been disclosed earlier, or with the consent of both parties, no material changes may be made to either party's case less than 21 days before a panel hearing.

In addition, the prosecution case and recommended sanctions must be consistent with any previous similar disciplinary cases (including ones where no misconduct was found) unless the prosecution discloses the inconsistency together with a credible explanation for the change.

Cards on the table, no surprises

The prosecution must inform the accused actuary at an early stage whether it regards the case as simple, intermediate or complex, and whether it regards the degree of misconduct as low, medium or high.

Unless new evidence comes to light which could not have reasonably been disclosed at an earlier stage, both prosecution and defence must disclose the evidence they rely on several weeks before any hearing.

New finding of Regulatory Overreach possible

To deter fishing expeditions/mud flinging/inconsistency/moving of goal posts or other regulatory overreach, a panel may make a finding of Regulatory Overreach, either instead of or in addition to a finding of misconduct.  If a panel makes a such a finding, then the panel must make a costs order (of the relevant Costs Limit - see below) in favour of the accused member, and if the panel also found misconduct, then the sanction for misconduct must be no more severe than a Reprimand.  This is to help ensure that prosecutions are scupulously fair to accused actuaries as well as to complainants.

Allowance for withdrawal of allegations/complaints by complainants

If any persons who made allegations of misconduct against members subsequently withdraw their allegations in writing, such withdrawals shall be communicated promptly to the accused actuary, and shall be included in any papers put before any panel.  The prosecution must consider on receipt of such withdrawal, whether to proceed with a disciplinary case or to withdraw it. If the prosecution decides to proceed, they should set out in writing their reasons for proceeding despite the withdrawal of the allegations.  These reasons shall be included in any papers put before any panel.

Allowance for possible non independent motivation of allegations/complaints

Panels shall state in their determinations whether complaints are felt to be free from any significant external bias or motivation, and take this into account in their decisions.

Abandonment or adjournment of cases possible

The prosecution has the option to withdraw a case at any point. If the accused member has left and so is no longer a member, the case shall be adjourned with no appointed date for resumption, but may be resumed if the member applies to rejoin.

No hiding of cases where panels disagreed with the prosecution

In cases where misconduct was alleged by the prosecution but no misconduct was found, traditionally no details have been published, which provided little deterrent against regulatory overreach.  In such cases, determinations are to be published (but with the exonerated actuary and any innocent third parties anonymised).

Disclosure of minority opinion

Adjudication, Tribunal and Appeal Panels shall make decisions on any matter by a simple majority, but shall state if there was a dissenting opinion and if so what that opinion was.

 

Definitions

Allegation: a claim (made by one or more identified individuals in writing) that an identified member has breached the Code of Professional Conduct that was in force at the time of the alleged breach.

Adjudication Panel: a three person panel appointed to decide if a Complaint against a memberis supported by sufficient evidence to proceed to a Tribunal Panel.

Adjudication Panel/Tribunal Panel: a three person panel appointed to decide if a Complaint against a member should be upheld or not, and associated decisions as set out later in this document.  Tribunal Panels apply for cases where the prosecution regards the alleged misconduct as serious enough to warrant a significant fine or expulsion, or for cases sent to an Adjudication Panel where misconduct was found but the member refused to accept the sanction offered.

Aggravating factor: a factor suggested by the prosecution to persuade a Panel to increase the level of sanction, cost or publication beyond what would normally be appropriate.  Such a factor must sit outside the nature of the Allegation or Complaint.

Appeal Panel: a three person panel appointed to decide if a decision by a Tribunal Panel should be overturned, confirmed, or varied, and associated decisions as set out later in this document.

Case: the process of dealing with an allegation through to a final decision (if any).

Case Manager: the person appointed to investigate the Allegation or Complaint.

Complainant: the indentified individual or individuals who made the Allegation.  The Complainant is not a party to the process, and accepts that it is the International Qualified Actuaries Group Limited which is responsible for taking any allegations forward under the Disciplinary Process.  Subject to the Complainant accepting that the Complainant will respect the confidentiality of the Respondent and any third parties and that publication of any determination is a matter for the relevant panel under the Disciplinary Process, the Complainant shall be kept informed by the Case Manager from time of progress in the case, and with copies of any determination documents. 

Complaint: an Allegation that has been accepted for detailed investigation after the initial sifting process.

Cost Limits: the maximum that a Panel may award as a costs order in favour of either party. Limits under this version of the Disciplinary Process are: Sifting Panels £0 (i.e. no costs order may be made), Adjudication Panels £10,000,  Tribunal Panels £15,000,  Appeal Panels £20,000. 

Disciplinary Appointments Committee (DAC): the independent committee that is set up to appoint individuals to various roles under the Disciplinary Process, including the pools of Investigation Actuaries, Sifting Panel members, Adjudication Panel members, and Appeal Panel members.

Head of Adjudication Panels: the lay person appointed by the DAC to be responsible for appointing persons from the Adjudication Panel Pool to any Adjudication Panel.  The DAC shall also appoint a Deputy Head (also a lay person) who shall perform the Head's role in the absence (or other inability to perform the role) of the Head.

Head of Appeal Panels: a senior barrister or solicitor appointed by the DAC to chair Appeal Panels and to appoint actuaries from the Pool of Tribunal Panel Actuaries to any Appeal Panel, such actuaries must not have been members of the Tribunal Panel for the same case or have any other conflict of interest.  The DAC shall also appoint a Deputy Head (also a senior barrister or solicitor) who shall perform the Head's role in the absence (or other inability to perform the role) of the Head.

Head of Tribunal Panels: the lay person appointed by the DAC to be responsible for appointing persons from the Tribunal Panel Pool to any Tribunal Panel.  The DAC shall also appoint a Deputy Head (also a lay person) who shall perform the Head's role in the absence (or other inability to perform the role) of the Head.

Head of Investigating Actuaries: a qualified actuary appointed by the DAC to be responsible for appointing persons from the Investigating Actuaries Pool to assist with the investigation of any case. The DAC shall also appoint a Deputy Head (who shall also be a qualified actuary) who shall perform the Head's role in the absence (or other inability to perform the role) of the Head.

Independent Examiner and Deputy Independent Examiner: barristers or solicitors who are appointed by the DAC to examine a decision by an Adjudication Panel to dismiss a complaint.

Investigating Actuary: a qualified actuary appointed (if necessary) to assist the Case Manager during the investigation of the Allegation or Complaint.

Misconduct: failure by a member of a professional body to comply with the standards of conduct which other members or the general public may reasonably expect of a member, including adherence to the articles, Rules of Membership and Code of Professional Conduct of the International Qualified Actuaries Group Limited.

Mitigating factor: a factor suggested by the defence to persuade a Panel (if misconduct has been found) to reduce the level of sanction, cost or publication below what would normally be appropriate.

Pool of Adjudication Panel Actuaries: qualified actuaries appointed by the DAC to sit as Adjudication Panel members.

Pool of Investigating Actuaries: qualified actuaries appointed by the DAC to perform the Investigating Actuary role in a case.

Pool of Legal Advisers: barristers or solicitors who are appointed by the DAC to provide independent legal advice to Adjudication, Tribunal and Appeal Panels.

Pool of Tribunal Panel Actuaries: qualified actuaries appointed by the DAC to sit as Tribunal Panel members.

Respondent: the member who is the subject of an Allegation or Complaint.  It is a condition of membership that members (whether or not they are the Respondent in a particular case) cooperate with any investigation under the Disciplinary Process.

Sifting Panel: a two person panel appointed to decide if an Allegation should be rejected or accepted as a Complaint.

 

Scope

This Disciplinary Process applies to any verified member of the company who was also a member at the time of the conduct that is alleged to breach the Code of Professional Conduct.  Allegations or complaints against a person who was a member, but becomes a former member before the conclusion of the case, will be adjourned with no appointed date for resumption, but may be resumed if the member rejoins.

Conflicts of Interest

In what follows, careful consideration shall be given at each stage to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest. If such actual or perceived conflicts of interest prevent invidivuals with particular roles (such as Head or Deputy Head of a particular group) from performing their normal role, then alternates from the same group are to be selected at random to perform that role until no conflicts arise.  If despite this, actual or perceived conflicts can't be avoided without abandoning the process, these actual or perceived conflicts must be disclosed to the Respondent and Complainant and the process continued with that disclosure kept in mind.

Steps in the Process

Consideration of an Allegation

Any Allegation shall be referred to a Case Manager. If at any point the Case Manager decides that an Investigating Actuary is needed, the Head Investigating Actuary (or Deputy Head if applicable) shall appoint an Investigating Actuary to the case.

A copy of the Allegation shall be sent to the Respondent who shall have the opportunity to provide any response in writing to the Case Manager, within 28 days of receipt by the Respondent of the Allegation.  Both the Case Manager and the Respondent shall have the opportunity to ask reasonable questions of clarification. For completeness the Respondent may of course during this clarification questions phase admit part or all of the allegations.

The Case Manager (with the agreement of the Investigating Actuary if one has been appointed) shall prepare an Allegation Report with a recommendation as to whether the allegation should be dismissed or accepted for detailed investigation and become a Complaint.  If the Case Manager and the Investigating Actuary cannot agree, the allegation is dismissed and categorised as inconclusive/having insufficient evidence.

The Allegation Report must include whether the prosecution regard the case as simple, intermediate or complex, and whether it regards the degree of misconduct as low, medium or high.

A copy of the Allegation Report shall be sent to the Respondent with an invitation to provide any response in writing to the Case Manager within 21 days of receipt by the Respondent of the Allegation Report. For completeness the Respondent may of course (within his or her response) admit part or all of the allegations.

Sifting Panel process

A Sifting Panel shall be appointed consisting of the Deputy Head of Adjudication Panels (or the Head if the Deputy Head is unable to act) and the Deputy Head of Investigating Actuaries (or the Head if the Deputy Head is unable to act). The Sifting Panel shall consider the Allegation Report and any written response by the Respondent in private and determine whether the allegation should be rejected or accepted for detailed investigation and become a Complaint.  The Sifting Panel's determination shall include written reasons for their decision.  If the two members of the Sifting Panel cannot agree their determination shall state this and their determination shall be treated as if they had determined that the allegation should be rejected.

If the recommendation in the Allegation Report was that the Allegation be dismissed and that recommendation was accepted by the Sifting Panel then the process shall end.

If the recommendation in the Allegation Report was that the allegation be accepted as a Complaint but the Sifting Panel disagreed and determined that it should be dismissed, the Complainant shall have the option within 21 days of receipt of the Sifting Panel's determination of requesting a second opinion. If the Complainant requests a second opinion, a new and different Sifting Panel (consisting of whichever of the Deputy Head or Head of the Adjudication Panels, and whichever of the Deputy Head of Investigating Actuaries was not in the original Sifting Panel; if for some reason, any of these is not available then a different member of the relevant pool or pools shall be selected at random) shall consider the Allegation Report and any written response by the Respondent in private.  The determination of this second Sifting Panel shall be deemed final, with the process either ending (if the determination is to dismiss the Allegation), or continuing (otherwise).

If the recommendation in the Allegation Report was that the Allegation be dismissed but the Sifting Panel disagreed and determinded that it should be accepted as a Complaint, the Respondent shall similiarly have the option within 21 days of receipt of of the Sifting Panel's determination of requesting a second opinion. If the Respondent requests a second opinion, a new and different Sifting Panel shall be appointed and determine the matter similarly to the above, with its determination being deemed final.

Dealing with an Allegation accepted as a Complaint

Detailed Investigation Stage

If an Allegation has been accepted through the process above as a Complaint, the Case Manager (assisted by the Investigating Actuary if one has been appointed) shall carry out an investigation (including sending questions in writing to the Respondent and giving the latter reasonable opportunities to reply in writing) to try to establish the facts relevant to the case. 

Preparation of a Case Report and Response

The Case Manager (with the agreement of the Investigating Actuary if one has been apponted) shall prepare a written Case Report. 

The Case Report must include whether the prosecution regard the case as simple, intermediate or complex, and whether it regards the degree of misconduct as low, medium or high. If this has changed since the Allegation Report, the Case Report must draw attention to the changes and provide an explanation for them.

The Case Report shall include one or more formal Charges against the Respondent together with full particulars of the evidence (including any witness statements) that the prosecution rely upon, and should include submissions as to sanction, costs and publication (including suggested mitigating and/or aggravating factors) should misconduct be found, and on costs should the complaint be dismissed. If the recommendation in the Allegation Report was that the Allegation be dismissed, that recommendation and any accompanying reasons must be disclosed in the Case Report. If the Case Manager and Investigating Actuary are unable to agree on the Case Report, the complaint is dismissed and categorised as inconclusive/having insufficient evidence and the company shall pay the respondent one half of the Cost Limit for Adjudication Panels.

If the prosecution's recommended sanction (as included in the Case Report) is one that is only available to a Tribunal Panel, the Case Report shall state that the case will be sent directly to a Tribunal Panel. Otherwise it shall state that it will be sent to an Adjudication Panel.

If the Case Report states that the case will be sent to an Adjudication Panel, the Respondent shall have the option (within 35 days of receipt of the Case Report) of stating in writing that the case will be sent directly to a Tribunal Panel.  

If either the prosecution or Respondent state that the case will be sent directly to a Tribunal Panel, the Adjudication Panel Process (and Independent Review) stages do not apply.  Instead the Tribunal Panel Process (see below) applies.

If the Case Report states that the case will be sent to an Adjudication Panel and the Respondent agrees, the Respondent may provide a written Response to the Case Report within 35 days of the Respondent's receipt of the Case Report.  The Respondent is not obliged to provide all these but recommended elements to provide any panel with a full picture of the defence case include: full particulars of the evidence (including any witness statements) that the defence rely upon, submissions as to sanction, costs and publication (including comments on suggested mitigating and/or aggravating factors) should misconduct be found, and on costs should the complaint be dismissed. For completeness the Respondent may of course admit part or all of the charges.

If the recommended sanction in the Case Report includes a stated period of suspension of membership and the Respondent would prefer a Fine (of up to a specified amount) to that period, the Respondent could state this (including the amount) in the Response. 

Adjudication Panel Process

Determination by Adjudication Panel

An Adjudication Panel (AP) consisting of a lay (non actuary) chairperson and two qualified actuaries (one if possible with experience in the area of practice that the Complaint relates to, and one from a different area) shall be appointed by whichever of the Head or Deputy Head of Adjudication Panels was not involved in the Sifting Panel process, or if both were involved, by a member of the Adjudication Panels pool selected at random.  In addition they shall also appoint a Legal Adviser from the Pool of Legal Advisers.

The AP shall meet in private, assisted by the Legal Adviser (whose role must be neutral and to assist the Panel in complying with the law and the rules of this Disciplinary Process), to make a determination based on the Case Report and the written Response (if any) provided by the Respondent. 

With regard to all decision points mentioned below the Adjudication Panel's written determination shall include a brief summary of the key advice provided by the Legal Adviser.

The AP shall determine (providing written reasons) either to dismiss the complaint, or whether in their opinion there appears on the balance of probabilities to be sufficient evidence of professional misconduct.

If the AP find Regulatory Overreach, the provisions mentioned earlier in this document apply.

If the AP find no misconduct, they must decide whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for an Adjudication Panel) in favour of the Respondent.  Their written determination will be redacted to anonymise the Respondent and any innocent third parties and is to be published on the company's Determinations page (in a section headed Complaints Dismissed) to remain there for 10 years. 

Independent Review on dismissal of a complaint by AP

If the AP find no misconduct, the matter ends there, unless the Complainant opts within 28 days of receipt of the AP's determination to request an independent review.  Such a request must be made in writing, and must state the grounds for making the request. 

The grounds must be one or more of the following: i) that the AP made an error in law, ii) that the AP's decision was manifestly inconsistent with the evidence presented to it, iii) that the AP's decision was manifestly inconsistent with new evidence that could not have been presented to the AP until now.   The DAC shall decide which of the Independent Examiner or the Deputy Independent Examiner to send the review to (the Examiner). 

The Examiner shall determine whether the grounds for review are met. If not, the request for review shall be declined and the case ends there.

If the Examiner determines that the grounds for review are met, the Examiner shall review the AP's decision (taking into account the Case Report, the Respondent's response if any to the Case Report, the AP's determination, and the request for review) and decide either to affirm the AP's decision, or if not, to either send the matter back to the original AP or a different AP to take specified particular points into account.   If the outcome of this review process is that no misconduct is found, the case ends there.

Process if the AP find misconduct

If the AP find misconduct, they must decide, after taking into account any submissions previously made by either party, on sanction, and whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for an Adjudication Panel) against the Respondent, and publication.  Except that if the AP find any part of the Charges unproven, no costs order shall be made against the Respondent, and if the AP find half or more of the Charges unproven, the AP must decide, after taking into account any submissions previously made by either party whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for an Adjudication Panel) in favour of the Respondent.

In addition the AP may not impose any sanction, costs or publication period more severe than those recommended in submissions in the Case Report. 

The AP shall invite the Respondent to accept the finding of misconduct and sanctions it has decided upon.  The Respondent shall have 28 days from receipt of the AP's written determination to decide whether to accept the determination. 

If the Respondent decides to accept the AP's determination of misconduct, the determination is published on the website Determinations page in line with the AP's decision on publication, and the sanctions come into effect.  The Respondent's entry in the published Directory of Qualified Actuaries shall be amended to display an entry of a disciplinary finding and link to the written determination.  Once the publication period has ended, the determination and public entry (while still retained privately in the company's records) shall be removed from public visibility from the company's website.

If the Respondent declines to accept the AP's determination of misconduct, the case is remitted to a Tribunal Panel.

Tribunal Panel Process

A Tribunal Panel (TP) consisting of a lay (non actuary) chairperson and two qualified actuaries (one if possible with experience in the area of practice that the Complaint relates to, and one from a different area) shall be appointed by the Head of Tribunal Panels (or Deputy Head in his or her absence or unavailability).  That person shall also appoint a Legal Adviser from the Pool of Legal Advisers (who must be different from the Legal Adviser who sat on any Adjudication Panel in the same case).

Prosecution documents for a Tribunal Panel

Except for documents mentioned below (from the Challenge Period and Panel Question Period) the prosecution papers for a Tribunal Panel shall consist of the Case Report that has already been prepared.

If at any stage the Case Manager and Investigating Actuary are unable to agree on the content of any further documents required in the Tribunal Panel stage below, the complaint is dismissed and categorised as inconclusive/having insufficient evidence and the company shall pay the respondent one half of the Cost Limit for Tribunal Panels.

Defence documents for a Tribunal Panel

Except for documents mentioned below (from the Challenge Period and Panel Question Period) the defence papers for a Tribunal Panel shall consist either of the Response document prepared by the Respondent in reply to the Case Report, or, if that was prepared without the benefit of legal advice, the Respondent may within 35 days of notification of remittance to a Tribunal Panel provide a Revised Response document.  Whichever document is used shall be called the Defence document.  If the recommended sanction in the Case Report includes a stated period of suspension or termination of membership and the Respondent would prefer a Fine (of up to a specified amount) to that period, the Respondent could state this (including the amount) in the Response or Revised Response.

"No surprises" allowed from this point on

Except with the consent of both parties, no new evidence or substantive points may be put forward by either party from the end of this Prosecution and Defence Documents stage.

Challenge Stage to save time and costs

Within 28 days of the end of the Prosecution and Defence Documents stage, either party have the opportunity to indicate whether they challenge any part of the other party's documents and if so what parts.  Unless this would lead to clear contradictions, the TP must accept any parts of the Prosecution and Defence Documents that have not been challenged in this Challenge Period.

Response to Challenge Stage to save time and costs

Within 28 days of the end of the Challenge stage, either party have the opportunity to submit a written response to any challenge made by the other party.

Panel Question period to save time and costs

Within 42 days of the end of the Response to Challenge stage, TP panel members shall have the opportunity of putting questions in writing to either or both party (the Prosecution and the Respondent).  The party to which the question is put shall have the opportunity to provide a response within 21 days, and the other party shall have the opportunity to comment on that response within a further 21 days.

TP hearing 

The TP shall hold its hearing in private unless the Respondent takes up the option (within 21 days of the end of the Question period) of requesting in writing that the TP hearing be held in public (normally online).  If the Respondent so requests, that request shall be granted.

The TP shall be assisted by the Legal Adviser (whose role must be neutral and to assist the Panel in complying with the law and the rules of this Disciplinary Process).

If the TP hearing is held in public, with the consent of both parties (or as decided by the panel in the absence of such consent) parts of the hearing may be held in private (for example about information relating to health or financial matters about the Respondent, or to protect confidentiality of a third party). 

TP determination

With regard to all decision points mentioned below the Tribunal Panel's written determination shall include a brief summary of the key advice provided by the Legal Adviser, including specific disclosure of any advice provided by the legal adviser during any private deliberations by the panel.

The TP shall make a determination, on the balance of probabilities, based on the Case Report,  Defence Document, Challenge Period Documents, Panel Question Period Documents and (if held in public) any oral arguments put forward by either party at the hearing, provided such oral arguments meet the "No surprises" condition.  The TP shall determine (providing written reasons, or oral reasons at this stage if held in public) either to dismiss the complaint, or whether in their opinion there appears on the balance of probabilities to be sufficient evidence of professional misconduct.   

If the TP find Regulatory Overreach, the provisions mentioned earlier in this document apply.

If the TP find no misconduct, they must decide whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for a TP) in favour of the Respondent.  If held in public, the defence and then the prosecution may make brief oral submissions (in addition to and consistent with any previous written submissions) before the TP makes their decision on costs.  The TP will produce a written determination which shall include details of their reasoning but the determination will be redacted to anonymise the Respondent and any innocent third parties and is to be published on the company's Determinations page (in a section headed Complaints Dismissed) to remain there for 10 years. 

If the TP find misconduct, they must decide, after taking into account any submissions previously made by either party, on sanction, and whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for a TP) against the Respondent, and publication. 

If held in public, the prosecution and then the defence may make brief oral submissions (in addition to and consistent with any written submissions in the Case Report and Defence Document respectively) at each stage (sanction,  costs and publication) before the TP makes their decision on that stage.

Except that if the TP find any part of the Charges unproven, no costs order shall be made against the Respondent, and if the TP find half or more of the Charges unproven, the TP must decide, whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for an Tribunal Panel) in favour of the Respondent.

In addition (with one exception) the TP may not impose any sanction, costs or publication period on the Respondent more severe than those recommended in submissions in the Case Report.  The exception is where the prosecution after the TP have found misconduct, ask to add a submission on aggravating factors because of previous misconduct found for the same Respondent, such previous misconduct having been hidden from the TP to avoid prejudicing their decision in the current case.  If the prosecution are permitted to add a submission on aggravating factors, the defence may add a submission in reply.

If the TP makes a cost order in favour of the Respondent, the company has 35 days from the later of receipt of the TP's written determination and of the Respondent's bank details to pay the amount of the order to the Respondent, unless the Respondent and the company agree to vary this.

If misconduct is found and a cost order is made against the Respondent, the Respondent has 35 days from the later of receipt of the TP's written determination and of the company's bank details to pay the amount of the order to the company, unless the Respondent and the company agree to vary this. 

Except that if misconduct is found, if the Respondent sends a Notice of Appeal in writing within 35 days of receipt of the TP's written determination, any cost order is stayed until the end of the Appeal Process.

Sending a Notice of Appeal

The Respondent (who shall be referred to as the Appellant during the Appeal Process) must include within the Notice of Appeal his or her Grounds of Appeal, which must be limited to arguing one or more of the following:

The decisions of the Tribunal Panel were arguably:

a) wrong in law, and/or

b) inconsistent with the evidence, and/or

c) excessively severe, and/or

d) flawed because of new evidence which has come to light and which could not have reasonably been presented to the Tribunal Panel.

Any Appeal Panel will normally hear the case in private, on the papers, but the Appellant should include in the Notice of Appeal whether he or she requests that the Appeal be heard in public.

If at any stage the Case Manager and Investigating Actuary are unable to agree on the content of any further documents required in this Appeal Panel stage below, the complaint is dismissed and categorised as inconclusive/having insufficient evidence and the company shall pay the respondent one half of the Cost Limit for Appeal Panels.

The Prosecution have the right, within 14 days of receipt of the Notice of Appeal, to send a brief written submission in reply (no more than 2 pages long, font size 12 and double-spaced) which shall be confined to whether the grounds are arguable.

The Appellant has the right, within 14 days of receipt of any written submission on arguability by the Prosecution, to send a brief written submission in reply to that (no more than 2 pages long, font size 12 and double-spaced) again confined to whether the grounds are arguable.

Decision as to whether to grant Leave to Appeal 

The Notice of Appeal shall be sent to the Head of Appeal Panels (or in his or her absence due to unavailability, the Deputy Head). This person shall decide whether to grant leave to appeal (and if leave is granted, whether to grant any request by the Appellant to hold the appeal in public). This person shall be the chairperson of any Appeal Panel that is subsequently appointed.

If the decision is to refuse to grant leave to appeal, the Appeal Process is over and the Tribunal Panel decision stands and the 35 days time limit for the Respondent to pay any cost order starts from the date of Respondent's receipt of the decision to refuse leave to appeal.

Appointment of Appeal Panel

If the decision is to grant leave to appeal, the chairperson of the Appeal Panel shall appoint two other panel members so that the three of them form the Appeal Panel.   The other two panel members must be qualified actuaries (one if possible with experience in the area of practice that the Complaint relates to, and one from a different area).  The chairperson of the Appeal Panel shall also appoint a Legal Adviser from the Pool of Legal Advisers (who must be different from the Legal Advisers who sat on any Adjudication Panel or Tribunal Panel in the same case).

The chairperson of the Appeal Panel shall issue further directions to parties with regard to any further written submissions to enable the Appeal Panel process to be conducted in the interests of justice and cost effectively as she or he sees fit.

Documents before the Appeal Panel

The Appeal Panel shall take into account:

• the papers put before the Tribunal Panel
• the transcript of the Tribunal Panel proceedings (if held in public)
• the determination of the Tribunal Panel
• the Notice of Appeal, any reply from the prosecution, any reply to that from the Appellant
• any further written submissions sent in accordance with the Appeal Panel chairperson's directions.

Decisions by the Appeal Panel

The Appeal Panel shall be assisted by the Legal Adviser (whose role must be neutral and to assist the Panel in complying with the law and the rules of this Disciplinary Process).

With regard to all decision points mentioned below the Appeal Panel's written determination shall include a brief summary of the key advice provided by the Legal Adviser, including specific disclosure of any advice provided by the legal adviser during any private deliberations by the panel.

In taking its decisions, the Appeal Panel may:

• quash the decision(s) of the Tribunal Panel
• reaffirm the decision(s) of the Tribunal Panel
• vary the decision(s) of the Tribunal Panel.

In addition to the above, it may make a finding of Regulatory Overreach.

If the Appeal Panel find Regulatory Overreach, the provisions mentioned earlier in this document apply.

If the Appeal Panel find no misconduct, they must decide whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for an Appeal Panel) in favour of the Appellant.  If held in public, the Appellant and then the prosecution may make brief oral submissions (in addition to and consistent with any previous written submissions) before the Appeal Panel makes their decision on costs.  The Appeal Panel will produce a written determination which shall include details of their reasoning but the determination will be redacted to anonymise the Appellant and any innocent third parties and is to be published on the company's Determinations page (in a section headed Complaints Dismissed) to remain there for 10 years. 

If the Appeal Panel find misconduct, they must decide, after taking into account any submissions previously made by either party, on sanction, and whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for an Appeal Panel) against the Appellant, and publication. 

If held in public, the prosecution and then the Appellant may make brief oral submissions (in addition to and consistent with any written submissions in the Case Report and Defence Document respectively) at each stage (sanction,  costs and publication) before the Appeal Panel makes their decision on that stage.

Except that if the Appeal Panel find any part of the Charges unproven, no costs order shall be made against the Appellant, and if the Appeal Panel find half or more of the Charges unproven, the Appeal Panel must decide, whether to award costs (up to the Costs Limit for an Appeal Panel) in favour of the Appellant.

In addition the Appeal Panel may not impose any sanction, costs or publication period on the Appellant more severe than those recommended in submissions in the Case Report, except that costs may be increased from those in the Case Report (up to the Costs Limit for an Appeal Panel) to include an allowance for costs reasonably incurred by the prosecution during the Appeal Process.

If the Appeal Panel makes a cost order in favour of the Appellant, the company has 35 days from the later of receipt of the Appeal Panel's written determination and of the Appellants bank details to pay the amount of the order to the Appellant, unless the Appellant and the company agree to vary this.

If misconduct is found and a cost order is made against the Appellant, the Appellant has 35 days from the later of receipt of the Appeal Panel's written determination and of the company's bank details to pay the amount of the order to the company, unless the Appellant and the company agree to vary this. 

 

Sanctions available to Adjudication Panels

Adjudication Panels should start from the lowest level of sanction available to them (namely no sanction, since to be subject to a disciplinary process is in itself a salutory lesson for a professional), and stop at the level they feel appropriate to the degree of misconduct that they have found.  They shall also take into account the complexity of the case, and consider in particular whether the misconduct should have been obvious to the professional concerned.

Panels should also try to make sanctions consistent with those awarded in previous disciplinary cases.

Adjudication Panels may award one or more of the following sanctions (shown in increasing levels of severity):

• no sanction (but with misconduct still recorded against the member for the publication period)
• a Reprimand
• a Fine of up to £7,500
• Suspension of the member's membership for up to 2 years.  

As an alternative to one of the above, the Panel may also order the professional to undertake within a specified time period, a period of training in a specified area relevant to the case, and to demonstrate compliance by providing written evidence to the Secretariat.

Sanctions available to Tribunal and Appeal Panels

Tribunal and Appeal Panels should start from the lowest level of sanction available to them (namely no sanction, since to be subject to a disciplinary process is in itself a salutory lesson for a professional), and stop at the level they feel appropriate to the degree of misconduct that they have found.  They shall also take into account the complexity of the case, and consider in particular whether the misconduct should have been obvious to the professional concerned.

Panels should also try to make sanctions consistent with those awarded in previous disciplinary cases.

Tribunal and Appeal Panels may award one or more of the following sanctions (shown in increasing levels of severity):

• no sanction (but with misconduct still recorded against the member for the publication period)
• a Reprimand
• an unlimited Fine (but a Fine larger than £15,000 must only be imposed as a sanction where there is clear evidence that the professional has made a significant financial gain from the misconduct and the fine must be no more than twice the gain made, or where the Respondent has indicated that he/she would prefer a large fine to a suspension or termination of membership.) The Panel must also take into account any evidence provided as to the member's ability to pay
• Suspension of the member's membership for up to 2 years
• Expulsion: termination of the member's membership for up to 5 years. Members subject to this sanction may apply for readmission at the end of the specified period but must satisfy a Readmission panel that the risk of repetition of the misconduct is low.

As an alternative to one of the above, the Panel may also order the professional to undertake within a specified time period, a period of training in a specified area relevant to the case, and to demonstrate compliance by providing written evidence to the Secretariat.

Finality of the Appeal Panel's decision

The decisions of the Appeal Panel shall be final: neither the Appellant nor the prosecution have any further recourse under this process.

 

International Qualified Actuaries Group Disciplinary Process (DRAFT v 0.8, effective from xx Jan 202x)