On 17 and 18 March 2021 the Adjudication Panel considered an allegation of misconduct against Mr Gatenby (the respondent). The allegations relate to his appointment as a single joint expert to report on the division of pension assets during divorce proceedings between Person A and Person B.
The panel upheld the allegation that he did not confirm his understanding of the terms of his instructions before preparing his report in breach of paragraph 2 of APS X3: The Role of the Expert in Legal Proceedings version 2.0, effective from 20 April 2018.
The panel found evidence to support that the report and addendum did not fulfil the instructions provided to the respondent and/or was inadequate in that he: did not report on all the alternative retirement dates for each party, as instructed; did not address within the report the ‘compulsory retirement age’ of Person A or B, as instructed; failed to take into account in his offsetting calculations the basis upon which police transfer values are calculated, which was unfair to Person A; did not address within the report the possible impact of Person A having to retire early on medical grounds, as instructed; did not discuss the various methods by which pensions can be apportioned to the various defined marriage periods; did not address his report to the Court (in breach of paragraph 9.1 of Court Practice Direction 25B ‘The Duties of an Expert, the Expert’s Report and arrangements for an Expert to attend Court’ and paragraph 4.2 of APS X3: The Role of the Expert in Legal Proceedings version 2.0, effective from 20 April 2018); and did not state whether his report was compliant with Technical Actuarial Standard 100: Principles for Technical Actuarial Work version 1.0 effective from 1 July 2017, in breach of Technical Actuarial Standard 100: Principles for Technical Actuarial Work version 1.0 effective from 1 July 2017.
The panel found that there were associated breaches of the competence and care, communication principles in the Actuaries’ Code (versions 2.0 and 3.0) and also, in relation to a number of the factual allegations above, breaches of the compliance principle.
The panel determined that these allegations disclosed a prima facie case of misconduct. In considering sanction, the panel took into account all relevant information and was satisfied that the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was a reprimand and a fine of £1,500.
If you would like to see a full copy of the published determination, this can be found on the IFoA’s website at bit.ly/3ffHssh