[Skip to content]

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

Determination report for Adjudication Panel: Mr Nigel Hugh Bradshaw

On 19 August 2010 the Adjudication Panel considered a complaint that the Respondent:
1. When instructed, pursuant to an order of Colchester County Court (“the Court”) dated 28 April 2008, to prepare a valuation report of Mr Paul Blaber’s police pension for the purpose of divorce proceedings (“the Proceedings”), he failed to undertake the instruction appropriately and produced a valuation (“the Report”) that was not fit for its intended purpose. In particular:
1.1. He failed to clarify adequately the capacity in which he was instructed;
1.2. He failed to clarify adequately the purpose for which he was instructed;
1.3. He failed to clarify adequately the assumptions and considerations of which he should take account for the purposes of the Report;
1.4. He took account of inappropriate and/or incorrect assumptions and considerations for the purposes of the Report;
1.5. He failed to undertake the Report with sufficient balance and fairness, having regard to the interests of both parties to the Proceedings;
1.6. He failed to provide sufficient information and discussion in the Report to enable the intended recipients of the Report to judge both the appropriateness of the recommendations and the implications of accepting them, in breach of paragraph 3.5 of the Professional Conduct Standards, version 3.0 and paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2.2 of Guidance Note 24, version 2.0.

Such conduct individually and collectively falling short of the standard required by paragraphs 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1 and 3.5 of the Professional Conduct Standards, version 3.0, breaching paragraphs 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 of Guidance Note 24, version 2.0 and in any event constituting misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 (b) of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute of Actuaries, being conduct falling below the standards of behaviour, integrity, competence or professional judgement which other members or the public might reasonably expect of a member.

Having considered the case report and the appendices submitted by the Investigating Actuary, the Panel determined that the case report disclosed a prima facie case of misconduct and that the Respondent should be invited to accept the following sanctions in accordance with rule 4.4(a)(i) of the Institute’s Disciplinary Scheme
>> a reprimand;
>> a fine of £5,000; and
>> a requirement to attend a professionalism course within 12 months

The Panel’s reasons were as follows:
1. The Respondent used a nontraditional approach to valuation of a pension without informing the Court of the nature of the approach used and as such denied the Court the opportunity to interpret the valuation and to make its own decision as to whether it was an approach that was appropriate in this case.

2. The Panel also determined that the Respondent was unprofessional in producing a report using only one method of valuation in the knowledge that it might (and probably would) be presented to the Court.
3. The Respondent ignored the approach that was made to the valuation of the other party’s pension rights. The Panel considered it to be unprofessional of the Respondent to allow the Court to act on the assumption that the two pension values could be treated as if they were comparable when the Respondent knew they were plainly not.

4. The Respondent’s report did not take account of the interests of both parties and was biased. The production of such an unbalanced and unfair report was unprofessional and amounted to misconduct.

5. The Panel determined that all of the particulars detailed in the allegation were prima facie misconduct.

6. The Panel concluded that the Respondent’s behaviour was so serious that it required a fine at the top end of the scale of the Adjudication Panel’s powers. The Panel further concluded that the Respondent’s unprofessional behaviour required a period of training to rectify the deficiency and as such require that the Respondent attend a professionalism course within the next 12 months.