ICAEW.com works better with JavaScript enabled.

Hearings, orders and decisions

This page gives information about hearings of ICAEW's Disciplinary and Appeal Committees, details of future hearings, reports of the findings and other orders made.

Public hearings

Hearings of tribunals of the Disciplinary Committee and panels of the Appeal Committee are normally open to the public. The details of public hearings will be published here seven days before the hearing. These details include:

  • the defendant or appellant's name;
  • the terms of the formal complaint; and
  • the date, time and place of the hearing.

Members of the press or public who attend a hearing are entitled to hear what is said but they are not entitled to see written material. All written material and information provided by ICAEW or a defendant in connection with disciplinary proceedings is confidential, including any application to proceed in private.

Decisions from hearings

This section lists a summary of all recent disciplinary decisions (with the exception of not proven cases). All these decisions are subject to possible appeals. Full reports of disciplinary orders and regulatory decisions made in the last 12 months are also available.

Details of future disciplinary and appeals hearings
Name of Respondent:   Mr Andrew James Wilson,  050496/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Andrew James Wilson is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing: 20 and 21 September 2022 
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual Hearing - Please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent:   Ms Jacquelyn Allen,  041858/MATT 
Complaint: The complaint is that Ms Jacquelyn Allen is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b
Date of hearing: 24 August 2022
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual Hearing - Please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent:   Mr John Richard Probert,  053343/MATT 
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr John Richard Probert is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1e and 4.2g
Date of hearing: 24 August 2022 
Time: 14:00
Place: Virtual Hearing - Please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent:   Mr A. Virji, 061449/MATT 
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Abdul Virji FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b
Date of hearing: 13 July 2022 
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual Hearing - Please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent:  Mr Rory Peter Christopher Heier ACA, 048467/MATT 
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Rory Peter Christopher Heier ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing: 25 July 2022
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual Hearing - Please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent: Mr Richard Farquhar Atkins FCA, 057881/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Richard Farquhar Atkins FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c
Date of hearing: 20 July 2022
Time: 14:00
Place: Virtual Hearing please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for details
Name of Respondent:  Mr Anthony William Mills FCA - 031236/MATT
Complaint:  The complaint is that Mr Anthony William Mills FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a 
 Date of hearing: 24-28 October 2022
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual Hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details
Name of Respondent:  Mr Michael Logan Rutt, FCA - 048918/MATT
Complaint:  The complaint is that Mr Michael Logan Rutt FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b. 
 Date of hearing: 19 and 20 July 2022
Time: 09:00
Place: Virtual Hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details
Name of Respondent: Ms Lisa Elizabeth Richards, 056223/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Ms Lisa Elizabeth Richards is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing: 13 September 2022
Time: 10:00
Place:

Virtual Hearing – contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

Summary of decisions

A summary of every decision is made available shortly after each hearing. We will not publish details of cases that are not proven. A full report of decisions are available in the ‘Full reports of disciplinary orders and regulatory decisions’ section.

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Miss Adele Dawn Horner of MANCHESTER, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 13 June 2022 Type of Member Member Complaint Between 6 June 2019 and 14 June 2021, Miss Adele Horner ACA failed to submit her Continuous Professional Development (CPD) records for the year ended 31 October 2018, contrary to Principal Byelaw 56c.

Miss Adele Dawn Horner is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1, which states that a member is liable to disciplinary action if: ‘he has committed a breach of the bye-laws or of any regulations or has failed to comply with any order, direction or requirement made, given or imposed under them.’

Finding: The Tribunal found the complaint proved on Miss Horner’s own admission.

Order: Reprimand To provide CPD records for 2018 by no later than 1 August 2022 Pay Costs of £4,500

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Andrew Dix of Chelmsford, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 7 June 2022

Type of Member: Member

Terms of complaint

Complaint 1

Between 3 May 2017 and 21 June 2017 Mr Andrew Dix, in his capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Mr ‘A’s estate, failed to comply with the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due Care in accordance with the Code of Ethics Part D when he executed the sale of certain assets, which vested in the bankruptcy estate, without obtaining an independent valuation or conducting a marketing exercise.

Mr Dix is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b (effective 3 October 2016).

Complaint 2

Between 27 August 2017 and 11 September 2017 Mr Andrew Dix, in his capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Mr ‘A’s estate, breached paragraph 3.7 and/or 3.9 of the Insolvency Licencing Regulations (effective 13 October 2015) as he failed to comply with:

a) Rule 15.8 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) 2016 Rules and/or

b) Rule 15.9 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 and/or

c) Rule 15.11 of the Insolvency (England & Wales) Rules 2016 and/or

d) Paragraph 6 of Statement of Insolvency Practice 6 and/or

e) Paragraph 7 of Statement of Insolvency Practice 6 and/or

f) Paragraph 9 of Statement of Insolvency Practice 9 and/or

g) Paragraph 11 of Statement of Insolvency Practice 9 and/or

h) Paragraph 16 of Statement of Insolvency Practice 9.

When seeking to obtain approval for the basis upon which he was to be remunerated as trustee.

Mr Andrew Dix is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective 3 October 2016).

Finding: Complaints found proved on Mr Dix’s own admission

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £6,000 and pay costs of £22,285

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Kevin Kuuku Francois of Oxford, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 1 June 2022

Type of Member: Member

Terms of complaint

054025

1. Between 11 January 2020 and 28 January 2020, Mr Kevin Francois ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 9 January 2020, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

054166

2. Between 24 January 2020 and 8 February 2020, Mr Kevin Francois ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 22 January 2020, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

Mr Kevin Kuuku Francois is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c

Finding: The tribunal found the complaints proved

Order: Mr Francois was reprimanded and ordered to pay costs of £10,000

This decision may be subject to appeal 

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr David Hedges of Skelmersdale, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 12 April 2022

Type of Member Provisional Member

Terms of complaint

On or around 18 December 2019, Mr David Hedges, a provisional member of ICAEW, created a letter dated 18 December 2019, and provided the letter to ‘A’ in support of car finance, knowing that the information contained in the letter was false, namely:

(a) That he had been promoted to A3 Senior Auditor at ‘B’; and / or
(b) That he had been given a car allowance of £851 by ‘B’; and / or
(c) Included a signature purporting to belong to ‘C’, Partner, of ‘B’

The above was dishonest in that he:

(a) Knew that he had not been promoted to A3 Senior Auditor; and/or
(b) Knew that he had not been given a car allowance of £851; and/or
(c) Knew that the signature was not that of ‘C’ Mr Hedges is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective 14 October 2019).

Finding: Complaint found proved on Mr Hedges’ own admission Order: Declared unfit to become a member and pay costs of £6,000.

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Paul Gerard O'Brien of Manchester, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 15/03/2022

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

On or around 19 January 2016, Mr Paul G O’Brien sent to HMRC a letter dated 28 September 2012 addressed to [edited] Primary Care Trust purportedly written by [edited], advising that the rights and duties of its ‘GDS Contract’ had been subcontracted to [edited] when that letter had been created by Mr Paul G O’Brien. This conduct was dishonest because he knew that letter to be false and he sent it to HMRC with the intention that they would believe it to be true.

Mr Paul Gerard O'Brien is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.

Previous Hearings Case Management Hearing 12th January 2022

Form of Hearing (Virtual) Sanctions Hearing

Decision on Complaint Proved by admission

Order Exclusion

Decision on Costs £7,890

Decision on Publicity Publicity Order

This decision may be subject to appeal

Full reports of disciplinary orders and regulatory decisions

This section lists all disciplinary and regulatory decisions published in the last five years. If you have any questions about decisions that are not listed here, please call +44 (0)1908 546 293.

Disciplinary decisions made under ICAEW’s bye-laws have to be published. The one exception is a caution.

Once a report has been removed from this page, details of cases may still be available on other websites or in search results.

2022

2021 

2020

2019

2018

2017

Private hearings

Applying beforehand for a hearing to be held in private

If you think your hearing should be held in private, you must make an application in writing to the PCD committee secretary. The regulations governing such an application can be found in the Disciplinary Committee Regulations.

An application needs to be made within 21 days of service of the documents sent by the PCD committee secretary further to Regulation 3 of the Disciplinary Committee Regulations. These are the documents sent once a formal complaint has been referred from the Investigation Committee to the Disciplinary Committee.

An application can be made by ICAEW or the respondent/respondent firm under regulation 3(b) and 4(c), as appropriate. If the respondent makes an application under regulation 4(c) the ICAEW representative will file a written response to the PCD committee secretary 7 days before the case management hearing. A copy of this will be sent to the respondent 2 days before the case management hearing.

The application will be determined by the case management chair at the case management hearing subject to the requirements of regulations 3, 4 and 34.

Pursuant to regulation 34, the case management chair may decide that the press and public shall be excluded from the whole or any part of the final hearing where it appears desirable to do so in the interests of justice or for any other exceptional reason provided always:

a. the particular circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding a public hearing; and

b. the case management chair making the decision is satisfied that the parties have had an opportunity to make representations.

The case management tribunal chair shall give the parties the principal reason/reasons for allowing or dismissing any application made under this regulation.

An application can also be made to the tribunal at any final hearing, as long as the applying party is able to demonstrate that they could not have made the application at the case management hearing, as outlined above.

Applying on the day for a hearing to be held in private

At the hearing, you may still ask the tribunal whether it is prepared to proceed in private. This would usually be on the first day of a hearing, but the tribunal can exercise the power to sit in private at any stage, even if none of the parties have asked it to do so; for example, if it's necessary to protect the identity of a third party. However, we can never guarantee anonymity.

When a tribunal agrees to hold all or part of the hearing in private, it gives its reasons on the day, and in public. The tribunal also gives these reasons in writing if the complaint is found proved.

The tribunal has the power to proceed in private by excluding the press or public from the whole or any part of a hearing, whether or not the parties ask it to do so. It can do this at any stage of a hearing or during a pre-trial review. When it decides whether to exclude anyone, the tribunal considers whether:

  • the interests of justice
  • any other special reason or
  • the particular circumstances of the case

outweigh the public interest in holding a public hearing. The tribunal must also be satisfied that both parties have been given an opportunity to make representations.