[Skip to content]

Sign up for our daily newsletter
The Actuary The magazine of the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries
.

Institute of Actuaries: Disciplinary proceedings

Peter Woods

The Disciplinary Tribunal of the Institute has dismissed a charge against one of its fellows, Mr Peter Woods, after he was found not guilty of misconduct at a tribunal hearing on 10 March 2003.

The particulars of the charge of misconduct as defined in Rule 3 of the Disciplinary Scheme under Bye-Law 69 of the Bye-Laws of the Institute of Actuaries were that:

  • Mr Peter Woods, a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, failed to renew his scheme actuary certificate when it became due for renewal on 7 February 2001. Subsequently, during the period 7 February 2001 to 18 March 2002, he:


    i retained appointment as scheme actuary to approximately 12 pension schemes; and


    ii accepted a new appointment as scheme actuary to one pension scheme in July 2001; such conduct being in breach of:

    • paragraph 2.1 of Guidance Note 29 (version 3.1) because he retained appointments and accepted a new appointment as a scheme actuary without a current scheme actuary certificate; and/or
    • paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the Professional Conduct Standards (version 1.0) because he did not maintain and observe the highest standards of conduct and did not act in a manner which upholds the reputation and integrity of the profession;

    – individually and together constituting conduct falling short of the standards which might reasonably be expected of a member.

The tribunal panel hearing the case found, on the basis of the documents produced in advance of the hearing and Mr Woods’s admissions at the hearing and in writing, that the facts alleged in the particulars of the charge were proved.

However, after considering legal argument at the hearing and having regard to the special circumstances of this case, the panel determined that Mr Woods was not guilty of misconduct as defined in Rule 3 and that the charge be dismissed. It wishes it to be placed on record, however, that this determination in no way indicates that it condones breaches such as those committed in this case and that in the absence of some or all of the circumstances listed in the full decision document they could in the panel’s opinion justify the upholding of a charge of misconduct under the scheme.

Further details of the charge, the legal argument, the relevant circumstances of this case, and the determination, can be found at: www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/professional_affairs/discipline/woods.pdf