Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • July 2022
News

DISCIPLINARY PANEL HEARING: Adam Charles Brunskill FIA

Open-access content Wednesday 6th July 2022

On 9 May 2022 the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel considered a charge of misconduct against Mr Brunskill (the respondent).

The IFoA’s charge against the respondent was that, in or around December 2017, he provided calculations of the solvency capital requirement for Company B to Company B’s management that were purportedly in accordance with the applicable Solvency II regulations. In those calculations he: did not calculate the solvency capital requirement for Company B as at 31 March 2018 in accordance with the applicable Solvency II regulations, and; significantly understated the solvency capital requirement for Company B in the calculation of the solvency capital requirement as at 31 March 2018. His actions were alleged to be in breach of the principles of competence and care, and of compliance in the Actuaries’ Code (version 2.0). It was also alleged that in or around February 2019, he did not communicate appropriately with Company B and/or its new actuarial advisers in that he did not provide information requested by it, in breach of the principle of communication in the Actuaries’ Code (version 2.0).

The panel found all of the elements of the charge proved, by admission, and that they constituted misconduct.

The panel determined that the most appropriate and proportionate sanction was a reprimand and a fine of £5,000. 

ACT Jul22_Full LR.jpg
This article appeared in our July 2022 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Also filed in:
News

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Senior Underwriting Risk Manager

London (Central)
£85K-£95K + Benefits
Reference
124386

Reserving Manager (Contract)

London (Central)
£1200 - £1400 per day
Reference
124385

Life Actuary - Contract - IFRS 17 Financial Impact

England, London / England, Bristol / North Yorkshire, England
£900 - £1150 per day
Reference
124384
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2022 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ