Insights / News
Insights / News
The application was unique as the Panel had to consider whether it could, and if so, should award costs to a non party – the employer of the Respondent.
Prior to the costs application, the Respondent had been charged with misconduct and the Respondent’s employer instructed a magic circle firm of solicitors. However, as new evidence had been received such that the professional body’s case was weakened, the professional body sought that the charge be dismissed by the Panel prior to it being heard at a Tribunal hearing. The Panel had to consider two principal issues:
The Panel considered whether it was possible to join the Respondent’s employer as a party to the proceedings, or whether there were any parallels between the employer and insurers or trade unions to enable a costs application to be made by the employer.
After Fiona’s submissions, the Panel agreed that there was no power that allowed it to join the employer as a party. Notwithstanding that, the Panel ruled that there was nothing in the rules to prevent it from awarding costs in favour of the Respondent’s employer, if thought appropriate. However, in this situation, the Panel ruled that the professional body had acted entirely appropriately in bringing the Charge, and subsequently seeking that it be dismissed due to the further evidence received. The Panel therefore ruled that costs were not payable against the professional body, and the Respondent’s application was dismissed.
Fiona has a regular and extensive practice both defending and prosecuting regulated professionals. This practice encompasses:
She has also conducted a number of serious and complicated cases regarding the regulation of actuaries on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Such cases invariably involve complex matters of expert evidence with regard to pensions and insurance.
News 29 Mar, 2020