
Representative’s ‘fate was sealed before she was heard’
The Tribunal found both that the process was unfair and that the FSP had not established dishonesty, recklessness, or lack of fitness and propriety.

The Tribunal found both that the process was unfair and that the FSP had not established dishonesty, recklessness, or lack of fitness and propriety.

CDH says the decision highlights the risks for businesses that incorporate cover or risk-transfer arrangements into broader commercial offerings.

The Tribunal finds that the alleged misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and materiality all depended on the contractual issue the FSP declined to establish.

The decision examines why client complaints, cellphone records, and handwriting evidence failed to establish dishonesty on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal held that procedural shortcomings must be distinguished from conduct showing a representative lacks honesty and integrity.

Five related decisions involving former Pineapple reps illustrate how misconduct affecting internal operational records may engage the honesty and integrity requirements.

The source of an obligation does not determine whether disputed conduct amounts to genuine fit-and-proper misconduct.

The decision clarifies when prior civil proceedings may prevent the Pension Funds Adjudicator from investigating a complaint over withheld benefits.

The ruling explains why exemption applications require objective statutory grounds rather than pleas for indulgence.

The decision highlights the distinction between punishing misconduct and compensating consumers who claim to have suffered losses.

Most FSCA levies will rise by 3.2%, but retirement funds face a 15% increase in the OPFA levy, and charges are introduced for some entities.

The FSP could not prove key elements of the process, including proper notice of the proceedings, and the conduct of the hearing.

The FST dismisses former EOH director Anushka Bogdanov’s application for reconsideration of sanctions imposed over misrepresented qualifications.

The decision turned on the adviser’s acceptance of personal benefits from a client, the lack of proper compliance disclosure, and the higher standard expected of a KI.

The deputy adjudicator finds the ‘freeze’ clause the fund relied on is tied to its DB rules and can’t be used to block a DC member’s savings withdrawal.

The Adjudicator conflated jurisdiction with enforcement and overlooked the potential personal-liability provisions in the PFA.

The Tribunal says membership could end only in accordance with the fund’s rules, and WhatsApp exchanges did not amount to a valid withdrawal.