The High Court has refused an associate member’s challenge to a Society of Actuaries in Ireland decision that there was prima facie evidence of misconduct and that the matter should go to a disciplinary tribunal.
Mr Justice McDermott ruled on 16 June 2017 that the Society’s Investigating Committee had acted fairly at the preliminary stage. The court found the decision was not amenable to judicial review because the Society’s powers arose from private agreement, but considered the applicant’s claims under private law. It held that the Society was required to follow fair procedures under its membership agreement and had done so.
The underlying complaint was made by the applicant’s brother, J.D.G., and concerned the applicant’s handling of the financial affairs of their late brother, J.G.G., and their late mother. The allegations included that the applicant held joint accounts and investments with J.G.G. while acting as his financial adviser, transferred money from a joint account into an account in his own name, did not provide an account of the funds, and failed to explain the consequences of joint ownership. J.D.G. also alleged that the applicant obtained J.G.G.’s signature on documents when he was seriously ill and without independent legal advice.
The applicant disputed wrongdoing. He said he had invested his own money for the benefit of both brothers, had followed J.G.G.’s instructions, and had provided information to the committee. He argued that he was denied a fair opportunity to respond because the committee would not hear oral evidence or allow him to cross-examine the complainant.
The committee concluded that the material before it supported a prima facie case on several matters, including conflict of interest, the movement of jointly held funds, the absence of a written account, and the applicant’s failure to cooperate with requests for information. It referred the case report to a disciplinary tribunal. The court noted that the committee had not made a final finding of misconduct or determined the truth of the allegations.
The judge held that the applicant had received detailed notice of the complaint and a reasonable opportunity to make written representations and submit documents. An oral hearing and cross-examination were not required at this investigative stage, the court said. Those protections would be available at the tribunal hearing, where the allegations could be tested and a final decision made.
The court also found that the committee had considered the applicant’s submissions and given clear reasons for its decision. It refused the application. The disciplinary tribunal stage had not yet taken place, and the judgment did not determine whether the applicant had committed misconduct.