- A former Discovery Life financial representative remains barred from the industry after failing to overturn a debarment.
- Anja Foster transferred confidential client information to her personal email account and her husband's email address.
- The Financial Services Tribunal found her explanations implausible and ruled that she had no prospect of successfully challenging the debarment.
Emailing confidential client information to her husband's email account has left a former Discovery Life financial representative barred from working in the industry.
The Financial Services Tribunal has dismissed Anja Foster's attempt to overturn a debarment imposed after she transferred confidential client information to her personal email account and shared information through her husband's email address.
Foster had worked as a financial services representative for Discovery Life for 13 years when the company launched an investigation into the unauthorised transfer of client information. Discovery's forensic team received a report in February 2025 that confidential information had been shared through a WeTransfer account during the early hours of the morning.
Foster resigned on the same day the information was transferred and handed in her company laptop. When interviewed by investigators, Foster acknowledged transferring information and explained that she wanted to create a backup in case something went wrong. She also confirmed that she had used her husband's email address because she needed documents printed and lived far from the office.
Discovery subsequently informed Foster that it intended to debar her because she no longer met the fit and proper requirements expected of a financial services representative. The company alleged that she had emailed confidential client information to her personal email account and disclosed confidential information to a third party.
Foster's explanation
In written representations submitted to Discovery, Foster argued that she had backed up client information to protect herself and to assist clients should they require help in future. She also maintained that information sent to her husband's email address was intended for printing purposes.
After considering her response, Discovery proceeded with the debarment on 21 August 2025. Foster later requested reasons for the decision before approaching the Financial Services Tribunal to seek reconsideration.
Her application was filed months after the prescribed deadline. Foster asked the tribunal to condone the delay, contending that she had attempted to lodge the application on three occasions but encountered formatting problems.
Discovery opposed the application and argued that she had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay.
Tribunal not persuaded
The tribunal found that Foster had failed to provide sufficient information about the alleged filing attempts and had not adequately explained the delay before the application was eventually lodged. The panel also examined the merits of her challenge and found little chance of success.
According to the tribunal, it was common cause that Foster had emailed confidential client information to her personal email account and had shared client information through her husband's email address. The panel found that her explanations did not justify the conduct.
The tribunal said, "The explanation of the applicant that she was protecting herself when she was sharing and emailing the information is not plausible."
It further found, "There is no substance in the contention of the applicant that the purpose of sharing private and confidential information was for meeting clients."
The panel noted that Foster was an experienced representative and should have known that the client information belonged to Discovery. It found that she transferred the information on the very day she resigned without seeking permission from management.
In assessing the prospects of success, the tribunal concluded, "The applicant has no prospect of success in the application for reconsideration."
Challenge dismissed
Having found no good cause for the delay and no merit in the challenge, the tribunal dismissed Foster's application.
The panel concluded, "The applicant failed to provide sufficient information in her application to show good cause for the delay."
The ruling leaves the debarment intact, meaning Foster remains barred from practising as a financial services representative.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
