- The Tribunal found that every allegation relied upon arose after 13 May 2025, by which time the mandate had already ended.
- There was no evidence of any misconduct during the period when Smith was still acting as a representative.
- The debarment was ultimately set aside because it did not meet the legal requirements under section 14 of the FAIS Act.
The Financial Services Tribunal has brought much-needed clarity to the legal requirements for debarment under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act through its decision involving Charl Julian Smith and Bryce Pristel Legal.
The case turned entirely on one question, namely, whether the conduct relied upon to justify debarment actually occurred while Smith was still acting as a representative of the company.
Smith approached the Tribunal in terms of Section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act to challenge his debarment. The Tribunal was then required to determine whether Bryce Pristel Legal had acted within the powers conferred by Section 14 of the FAIS Act.
Parties and background
Smith was appointed as a representative of Bryce Pristel Legal on 22 October 2024, and his mandate was terminated on 13 May 2025. Although there were conflicting versions about the date of resignation, both parties ultimately accepted that 13 May 2025 was the termination date.
Following this termination, Bryce Pristel Legal raised several complaints against Smith. These included allegations that he failed to follow instructions by not placing policies on debit, refused to return original client application documents, engaged in verbal abuse towards staff, issued threats and intimidation, and caused delays in policy activation that could result in a declined claim.
On 13 August 2025, Bryce Pristel Legal issued a notice of intention to debar Smith. On 20 August 2025, it informed him that he had been found guilty of the charges and would be debarred. The debarment was recorded with the Financial Sector Conduct Authority on 22 August 2025.
In its debarment letter, Bryce Pristel Legal stated: “After careful consideration of the information, facts and evidence, including testimony by clients and members of staff, the FSP is satisfied that undisputed evidence exists to conclude that you no longer comply with the fit and proper requirements, particularly the character qualities of honesty and integrity.”
What the Tribunal had to decide
The Tribunal identified the central issue as whether Bryce Pristel Legal was justified in debarring Smith based on the grounds it relied upon, which required a careful assessment of whether the alleged misconduct met the legal threshold set out in Section 14 of the FAIS Act.
Section 14 permits debarment where a financial services provider is satisfied, based on available facts, that a representative no longer complies with the requirements referred to in Section 13(2)(a), which include competence and fit and proper standards.
The Tribunal also considered the requirement that the debarment process must be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
Tribunal analysis of the evidence
The Tribunal found that Bryce Pristel Legal failed to produce any evidence of misconduct that occurred before 13 May 2025, when Smith was still under a mandate to act as its representative.
The Tribunal was unequivocal. “The Respondent has failed to produce evidence of the Applicant’s misconduct that occurred before 13 May 2025 when he was still mandated to act as its representative.”
The Tribunal further noted that all the evidence presented by Bryce Pristel Legal to support the allegations related to events that took place after the termination of the mandate.
It also noted that Bryce Pristel Legal could not provide evidence during the hearing or in the record to support certain allegations, including the claim that Smith failed to follow multiple instructions.
In addition, the Tribunal found that Bryce Pristel Legal could not demonstrate any prejudice suffered in relation to the AVBOB policy referred to in Smith’s application.
While Bryce Pristel Legal argued that Smith lacked honesty, integrity and competence, the Tribunal held that none of these conclusions was supported by evidence of conduct during the relevant period.
The legal principle clarified
The Tribunal confirmed that a financial services provider may indeed debar a former representative, but only where the misconduct relied upon occurred while that person was still acting under a mandate.
The Tribunal made its position clear. “The Applicant’s misconduct should have occurred while the agent was still mandated as a representative.”
The Tribunal accepted Bryce Pristel Legal’s submission that resignation alone does not prevent debarment, but it was careful to clarify that this principle applies only where the misconduct arose during the period of representation.
In this matter, the Tribunal found that this requirement had not been met because the alleged misconduct occurred after 13 May 2025.
Conclusion and order
In the end, the Tribunal concluded that Bryce Pristel Legal was not justified in debarring Smith on the grounds presented.
The Tribunal was definitive. “It is the conclusion of the Tribunal that the Respondent was not justified in debarring the Applicant based on misconduct that occurred when the Applicant was no longer mandated.”
The application for reconsideration was granted, and the debarment was set aside.
The Tribunal did acknowledge that Smith’s conduct after termination, including disrespectful communication reflected in WhatsApp messages and emails, did not assist his position. However, it held firmly that this conduct could not form the basis for debarment under the FAIS Act.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
