On 26 November 2015, the appeals tribunal panel considered an appeal against the determination by a disciplinary tribunal of a finding of misconduct against Mr Michael James Asher relating to non-compliance with a monitoring exercise carried out by the IFoA in respect of CPD year 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.
On 26 November 2015, the appeals tribunal panel considered an appeal against the determination by a disciplinary tribunal of a finding of misconduct against Mr Michael James Asher relating to non-compliance with a monitoring exercise carried out by the IFoA in respect of CPD year 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.
Further charges relating to a failure to retain sufficient records and failure to demonstrate that appropriate and sufficient continuing professional development (CPD) had been undertaken in respect of the same CPD year had not been proved before the disciplinary tribunal panel and had been dismissed.
The appeal tribunal panel noted that the disciplinary tribunal panel finding rested not on a conclusion that Mr Asher was subject to the CPD scheme but rather on a breach of an obligation to point out at an early stage that he was not required to do CPD at all because he was not in paid work. On this view, compliance with the CPD scheme extends even to those not subject to it in the first place.
The IFoA indicated in advance of the appeal hearing that it would not resist the appeal, as it had not been proved at the disciplinary tribunal that Mr Asher was subject to the CPD scheme in operation at the time.
In allowing the appeal, the appeal tribunal panel stated that it was "incumbent" upon Mr Asher to inform the IFoA at all times, but certainly in 2012, that he was not in paid work and that he therefore was not subject to the CPD scheme to do CPD activities at all.
The appeal panel considered this obligation to be more than one of mere courtesy, stating that: " there is a professional duty arising out of the terms of the Actuaries' Code on any member when called upon to supply evidence of compliance with the CPD scheme, to say at the earliest possible opportunity (if that is his case) that he is not obliged to comply with the requirements of the CPD scheme because of factors he is aware of but of which the IFoA cannot be so aware."
Despite the lengthy history of the matter, Mr Asher had only told the IFoA that he was not in fact subject to the CPD scheme after the start of the formal hearing into the allegation of misconduct. Delays and adjournments had been caused by this late notification of the true nature of his defence. It was entirely possible that, had he made clear his position earlier, there would have been either no hearing at all or a much shorter hearing.
In the circumstances, the appeal against the finding of misconduct was allowed, the sanction of a reprimand was quashed, but the costs award against Mr Asher remained at a contribution of £5,000 inclusive of VAT towards the IFoA's costs at first instance.
The full determination, including the appeal tribunal panel's reasoning, is available on the IFoA website at bit.ly/1SDZC6c
