Hearings, orders and decisions

Details of future disciplinary and appeals hearings

Name of Respondent:	Mr Michael Selby Pinner, 061992/MATT
Complaint:	The complaint is that Mr Michael Selby Pinner is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing:	20 June 2023
Time:	10:00
Place:	IDRC, 70 Fleet Street, London, EC4Y 1EU

Name of Respondent:	Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd, 047195/MATT
Complaint:	The complaint is that Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-laws 5.1a and 5.1b.
Date of hearing:	15, 16 and 17 May 2023
Time:	10:00
Place:	IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s, London, EC4M 7BQ.

Name of Respondent:	Mr David Lindus Forge FCA - 054062/MATT
Complaint:	The complaint is that Mr David Lindus Forge FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing:	19 June 2023
Time:	10:00
Place:	Virtual Hearing please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

Name of Respondent:	Mr Timothy John Vogel BSc FCA - 041220/MATT
Complaint:	The complaint is that Mr Timothy John Vogel BSc FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-laws 4.1d, 4.1a, 4.1c and 4.1b
Date of hearing:	14 and 15 June 2023
Time:	10:00 on 14th
Place:	Virtual Hearing please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

Name of Respondent:	Mr Bharat Punja Merag Shah, 061478/MATT
Complaint:	The complaint is that Mr Bharat Punja Merag Shah is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing:	12 June 2023
Time:	10:00
Place:	Virtual Hearing please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for details

Name of Respondent:	Mrs Lynn Catherine Pridmore ACA, 049982/MATT
Complaint:	The complaint is that Mrs Lynn Catherine Pridmore ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing:	6 and 7 June 2023
Time:	10:00
Place:	Virtual Hearing please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

Name of Respondent:	Mr Jagdish Singh Natt, 055447/MATT
Complaint:	The complaint is that Mr Jagdish Singh Natt is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
Date of hearing:	9 May 2023
Time:	10:00
Place:	IDRC, 70 Fleet Street, London, EC4Y 1EU

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

Mr Jagdish Singh Natt of LONDON, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 9 May 2023.

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

Complaint 1

Mr Jagdish Singh Natt FCA, on behalf of ‘A’, provided ‘B’ Limited with letters on the 03 October 2014 and/or 05 March 2015 that included the following statement of approval, when he knew neither he nor his firm was authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to do so.

“We have reviewed the memorandum of information and have approved it for the purposes of Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)”.

Mr Jagdish Singh Natt FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1a.

Complaint 2

Mr Jagdish Singh Natt FCA, on behalf of ‘A’, provided ‘B’ Limited with letters on the 03 October 2014 and/or 05 March 2015 that included the following statement, which was not caveated by an explanation regarding its purpose:

“We have reviewed the memorandum of information and have approved it for the purposes of Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA)”.

Mr Jagdish Singh Natt FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1b.

Finding: Proved by own admission

Order: Severe reprimand, to pay fines of £2,100-00 and costs of £8,870-00

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr David Charles Smith of LONDON, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 12 April 2023.

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1. Mr David Smith FCA, as principal of 'A' Ltd failed to fulfil assurances provided to ICAEW following a QAD visit on 14 September 2010, as follows:

b. In respect of his requirement to document his procedures for the identification, verification of clients and customer due diligence measures and monitoring checks;

"Arrangements are in place for new clients. See above for old clients."

2. Between 14 September 2010 and 25 June 2017, Mr David Smith FCA, as principal of 'A' Ltd failed to ensure that the firm had complied with The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 as follows:

a. Paragraph 19 in that they did not keep the records required to evidence the customers identity or supporting records in respect of a business relationship; and / or

c. Paragraph 7 in that they did not ensure that appropriate and complete customer due diligence measures were applied to all of their clients

3. Between 26 June 2017 and 3 August 2020, Mr David Smith FCA, as principal of 'A' Co failed to ensure that the firm, had complied with The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 as follows:

a. Regulation 18 in that they did not take appropriate steps to identify and assess the risks to the firm and did not document such risk assessments; and/or

b. Regulation 19 in that they did not establish and maintain policies, controls and procedures, in writing, to mitigate and manage the risks; nor regularly review and update the policies, controls and procedures; and / or

d. Regulation 40 in that they did not keep the documents and information obtained to satisfy the customer due diligence requirements.

4. Between 17 April 2020 and 3 August 2020 Mr David Smith FCA failed to cooperate with the Practice Assurance Committee in carrying out its functions under the Practice Assurance Scheme, by not providing the information listed below as requested in a letter dated 17 April 2020, contrary to Practice Assurance Regulation 8 (effective 1 July 2019).

a. 'provide an anti-money laundering training plan for yourself and your staff by 31 May 2020.

b. Submit a copy of its firm-wide risk assessment by 31 May 2020.

c. Submit examples of completed CDD for one new client and two longstanding clients by 31 May 2020. The information provided should include:

• Know your client details;
• Risk assessment;
• Confirmation of the steps taken to verify the client's identity; and
• Evidence of ongoing review for existing clients.

d. Confirmation by 31 May 2020 that CDD has been documented on all clients (including identity evidence and risk assessment) for all clients; and

e. Confirmation by 31 May 2020 that CDD will be subject to an on-going review and this review will be documented.'

Mr David Charles Smith is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a for complaints 1, 2 and 3 & Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c for complaint 4.

Finding: The Tribunal found Complaints 1b, 2a, 2c, 3a, 3b, 3d, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e, proven

Order: Severe Reprimand, Fined £8,000-00 and to pay full costs of £10,825-00.

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Marc Justin Landsman FCA of Manchester, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 4 April 2023

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1. Between 21 May 2016 and 21 July 2020, Mr Marc Justin Landsman FCA, as Supervisor of the Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) of Mr 'A', failed to comply with the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due care and/or Professional Behaviour as he failed to send annual progress reports to the IVA creditors in accordance with the Rule 5.31a of the Insolvency Rules 1986 and/or rule 8.28 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.

If proven, Mr Landsman may be liable to disciplinary action pursuant to Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1 a

And/or

Mr Marc Justin Landman FCA, as Supervisor of the Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) of Mr 'A', failed to a report annually on the progress of the IVA to all creditors bound by the arrangement within two months of the end of the anniversary of the commencement of the IVA. Mr Landsman failed to comply with:

a) Rule 5.31A of the Insolvency Rules 1986 between 21 May 2016 and 21 July 2016;

and/or

b) Rule 8.28 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 between 21 May 2017 and 21 July 2017, 21 May 2018 and 21 July 2018, 21 May 2019 and 21 July 2019, 21 May 2020 and 21 July 2020.

If proven Mr Landsman is liable to disciplinary action pursuant to Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1 b

2. In the period between 22 July 2015 to 20 July 2021, Mr Marc Justin Landsman FCA breached the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due care and/or Professional Behaviour of the Code of Ethics (Part D) following his appointment as Supervisor of Mr 'A's Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) as he failed to adequately progress the IVA and/or arrange for a decision of the creditors to take place to determine the steps to take.

If proven Mr Landsman is liable to disciplinary action pursuant to Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1 a.

Finding: All complaints found proved on Mr Landman's own admission

Order: Severely reprimanded fined £5,000 and pay costs of £9,590

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Laurence Berko, RINGWOOD United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 5 April 2023

Type of Member  member

Terms of complaint

1. Between 1 April 2008 and 6 April 2019, Mr Laurence Berko FCA submitted to HMRC his self-assessment tax returns as set out in the Schedule A, which omitted the full amount of dividends received.

This conduct was dishonest because Mr Laurence Berko submitted the returns knowing he had not disclosed in the returns the full amount of dividends which he was required to do.

And/or

2. Between 1 April 2008 and 6 April 2019, Mr Laurence Berko FCA submitted to HMRC his self-assessment tax returns as set out in the Schedule A, which omitted the full amount of dividends received

This conduct was contrary to s110 of the ICAEW Code of Ethics (1 January 2011 – 31 December 2019) because:

a) Mr Berko deliberately submitted the returns knowing he had not disclosed in the returns the full amount of dividends which he was required to do; and / or

b) omitted required information where such omissions were misleading

Schedule A

Period	Date submitted to HMRC	Amount omitted (£)
Tax year ended 5 April 2009	Information not available	5,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2011	19 January 2012	35,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2012	13 December 2012	52,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2013	22 January 2014	50,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2014	8 January 2015	28,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2015	12 November 2015	22,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2016	24 November 2016	14,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2017	10 August 2017	15,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2018	29 January 2019	12,000
Tax year ended 5 April 2019	29 January 2020	10,876

Mr Laurence Berko is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1a for complaints 1 and 2.

Finding: Complaint(s) found proved on own admission

Order: Excluded from membership, fined £3,000-00 and to pay costs of £11,835-00

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Christopher Noel Gaffney of BURY, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 30 March 2023.

Type of Member  member

Terms of complaint

1. Between 17 March 2016 and 23 July 2020, Mr Christopher Gaffney FCA did not make adequate enquiries and / or ensure professional competence when he:

a) advised Mr ‘A’ that he would be eligible to claim Entrepreneurs’ Relief on the disposal of his business; and / or

b) prepared and filed with HMRC a self-assessment tax return on behalf of his client, Mr ‘A’, from 6 April 2017 - 5 April 2018 which contained a claim for Entrepreneurs’ Relief when he should have known Mr ‘A’ was not eligible for it; and / or

c) informed Mr ‘A’ that HMRC were incorrect in saying that a formal winding-up process needed to have taken place in order for the distribution from ’B’ to have been treated as capital and eligible for Entrepreneurs’ Relief; and / or

d) advised Mr ‘A’ that he could restore his company, ‘B’ Ltd, and subsequently perform a Members’ Voluntary Liquidation, which would enable him to claim Entrepreneurs’ Relief; and / or

Mr Christopher Gaffney therefore FCA failed to exercise sound judgment when applying his knowledge and skill in accordance with s130.2 of the Code of Ethics (effective from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2019).

Mr Christopher Gaffney FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b in respect of all complaints.

Finding: The Tribunal found Complaints 1a to 1d proved.

Order: Exclusion and pay costs of £24,475-00

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Kevin Lucas of Hale, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 27 March 2023

Type of Member Former Member

Terms of complaint

1. Between 13 January 2022 and 28 January 2022 Mr Kevin Lucas FCA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 12 January 2022, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

Mr Lucas is therefore liable for disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective from 14 October 2019)

Finding: Complaint found proved

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £5,000. Global cost ordered of £29,500 (055037/047536/063692).

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Kevin Lucas of Hale, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 27 March 2023

Type of Member Former Member

Terms of complaint

1. That, between 26 November 2019 and 7 September 2020, Mr Kevin Lucas in his capacity as joint trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Mr 'A', failed to act in accordance with the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due Care as set out in the Insolvency Code of Ethics Part D by failing to respond to correspondence and a formal complaint sent by Mr 'B'.

Mr Lucas is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b.

Finding: Complaint found proved

Order: Had Mr Lucas still been a member the tribunal would have excluded him. Fine £5,000. Global cost ordered of £29,500 (055037/047536/063692).

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Kevin Lucas of Hale, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 27 March 2023.

Type of Member Former Member

Terms of complaint

2. On or around 01 June 2015 to 25 May 2021 Mr Kevin Lucas, FCA failed to progress and finalise the liquidation of 'A' Trust in a timely fashion.

By virtue of the above, Mr Kevin Lucas is liable to disciplinary action under 4.1a of the bye-laws effective from 24 July 2013 to 31 December 2015, 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016, 3 October 2016 to 10 October 2017, 11 October 2017 to 14 October 2018, 15 October 2018 to 13 October 2019 and 14 October 2019 to present.

3A. On or around 01 June 2015 to 25 May 2021 Mr Kevin Lucas, FCA failed to progress and finalise the liquidation of 'A' Trust in a timely fashion. By virtue of the above, Mr Kevin Lucas is liable to disciplinary action under 4.1a of the bye-laws effective from 24 July 2013 to 31 December 2015, 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016, 3 October 2016 to 10 October 2017, 11 October 2017 to 14 October 2018, 15 October 2018 to 13 October 2019 and 14 October 2019 to present.

(a) 31 May 2017; and/or

(b) 31 May 2018; and/or

(c) 31 May 2019

By virtue of the above, Kevin Lucas is liable to disciplinary action under 4.1b of the bye-laws effective from 3 October 2016 to 10 October 2017, 11 October 2017 to 14 October 2018 and 15 October 2018 to 13 October 2019

And/or

3B. Between 31 May 2017 and 31 July 2019, Mr Kevin Lucas, FCA, acting as Creditors' Voluntary Liquidator of ‘A’ Trust, failed to comply with Rule 18.7 (6) of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 and Section 104A of the Insolvency Act 1986 in that he:

a. Did not send a progress report for the following year ends within the period of two months following each anniversary, to the Registrar of Companies:

(i) 31 May 2017; and/or

(ii) 31 May 2018; and/or

(iii) 31 May 2019 and/or

b. Did not send a progress report for the following year ends within the period of two months following each anniversary to the members and creditors:

(i) 31 May 2017 and/or

(ii) 31 May 2018; and/or

(iii) 31 May 2019.

By virtue of the above, Kevin Lucas is liable to disciplinary action under 4.1b of the bye-laws effective from 3 October 2016 to 10 October 2017, 11 October 2017 to 14 October 2018 and 15 October 2018 to 13 October 2019

4. Between 25 September 2019 and 25 November 2019, Mr Kevin Lucas, FCA, acting as Creditors' Voluntary Liquidator of 'A' Trust, failed to declare the final dividend to creditors in the two month period in Rule 14.34 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.

By virtue of the above, Mr Kevin Lucas is liable to disciplinary action under 4.1b of the bye-laws effective from 15 October 2018 and 14 October 2019 and 14 October 2019 to present.

Finding: Complaints found proved

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £7,500. Global cost ordered of £29,500 (055037/047536/063692).

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Jeffrey Everard Charles Davidson FCA of London, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 8 March 2023.

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

Complaint 1 (061897)

Between 23 August 2021 and 13 October 2021, Mr Jeffrey Everard Charles Davidson FCA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 23 August 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

Complaint 2 (063068)

Between 18 November 2021 and 4 December 2021, Mr Jeffrey Everard Charles Davidson FCA, failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 18 November 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Byelaw 13.2.

Mr Jeffrey Everard Charles Davidson is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective from 19 October 2019) in respect of complaints 1 and 2.

Finding: Complaints found proved on own admission

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £5,000 and pay costs of £8,125. Remedial Order to provide information, explanations, and documents within 28 days.

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Roger David Bagshaw of NORTHAMPTON, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 15 March 2023.

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1. Between 31 October 2019 and 8 March 2022 Mr R D Bagshaw ACA failed to respond to the Practice Assurance Closing Record following QAD’s review on 9 October 2019, within 15 days, contrary to Practice Assurance Regulation 20 (effective 1 July 2019).

Mr Bagshaw is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 4.1c.

2. Between 4 July 2011 and 9 October 2019, Mr R D Bagshaw ACA, failed to fulfil assurances given to ICAEW staff following the visit by the QAD on 4 July 2011, the assurances given by Mr Bagshaw were as follows:

a. “Registration is being applied for” in relation to failing to register with the Information Commissioner’s Office as required by the Data Protection Act.
b. “I have decided to issue all clients with engagement letters to cover both the points” in respect of failing to issue clients with details of the firm’s fees and complaints procedures, as required by the Code of Ethics (240.2b [2011]) and ICAEW Bye-law 11.1. Contrary to Practice Assurance Regulation 4 (effective from 1 January 2008) and Practice Assurance Regulation 8 (effective from 1 July 2019).

Mr Bagshaw is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 4.1a.

3. Between 6 March 2021 [day after respond by date in Closing Meeting Note] and 8 March 2022 Mr R D Bagshaw ACA failed to respond to the Practice Assurance Closing Record following QAD’s review on 11 February 2021, within 15 days, contrary to Practice Assurance Regulation 20 (effective 1 July 2019).

Mr Bagshaw is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 4.1c.

4. Between 1 September 2020 and 8 March 2022 Mr R D Bagshaw ACA while a PC holder failed to submit the 2020 ICAEW annual return for ‘A’ in breach of 

a. Practice Assurance Regulation 12; and / or
b. Regulation 2.5 of the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations.

Mr Bagshaw is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 4.1c

5. Between 1 September 2021 and 8 March 2022 Mr R D Bagshaw ACA while a PC holder failed to submit the 2021 ICAEW annual return for ‘A’ in breach of

a. Practice Assurance Regulation 12; and / or
b. Regulation 2.5 of the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations.

Mr Bagshaw is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 4.1c

Mr Roger David Bagshaw is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw.1c for complaints 1, 3, 4 and 5 and Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a for complaint 2.

Finding: Complaints found proved

Order: Excluded from membership and pay costs of £8,500

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Avinash Kumar ACA of Quetta, Pakistan

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 1 March 2023.

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1(a) On or around 8 October 2018 Mr Avinash Kumar ACA falsified, or caused to be falsified a fitness for work statement purporting to be from Dr A and provided this to his employer;

and/or

1(b) On or around 1 November 2018 Mr Avinash Kumar ACA falsified, or caused to be falsified, a fitness for work statement purporting to be from Dr A and provided this to his employer.In carrying out these actions, Mr Kumar acted dishonestly.

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

Order: Excluded from membership, fined £9,000 and pay costs of £15,917

A recommendation that no application for readmission be considered for a period of 5 years.

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.

2023

• 23 May 2023
• 3 May 2023
• 6 April 2023
• 5 April 2023
• 1 March 2023
• 1 February 2023
• 11 January 2023
• 4 January 2023

2022

• 7 December 2022
• 23 November 2022
• 14 November 2022
  
• 2 November 2022
• 5 October 2022
• 7 September 2022
• 3 August 2022
• 6 July 2022
• 1 June 2022
• 4 May 2022
• 6 April 2022
• 2 March 2022
• 21 February 2022
• 2 February 2022
• 20 January 2022
• 20 January 2022
• 5 January 2022

2021 

• 1 December 2021
• 3 November 2021
• 28 October 2021
• 6 October 2021
• 7 September 2021
• 1 September 2021
• 19 August 2021
• 4 August 2021
• 7 July 2021
• 6 July 2021
• 2 June 2021
• 5 May 2021
• 7 April 2021
• 17 March 2021
• 9 March 2021
• 3 March 2021
• 3 February 2021
• 6 January 2021
• 6 January 2021
• 5 January 2021

2020

• 2 December 2020
• 4 November 2020
• 7 October 2020
• 2 September 2020
• 5 August 2020
• 1 July 2020
• 3 June 2020
• 6 May 2020
• 1 April 2020
• 31 March 2020
• 4 March 2020
• 20 February 2020
• 5 February 2020
• 30 January 2020
• 8 January 2020

2019

• 4 December 2019
• 6 November 2019
• 2 October 2019
• 4 September 2019
• 7 August 2019
• 3 July 2019
• 5 June 2019
• 1 May 2019
• 3 April 2019
• 6 March 2019
• 6 February 2019
• 2 January 2019

2018

• 5 December 2018
• 7 November 2018
• 3 October 2018
• 5 September 2018
• 1 August 2018
• 4 July 2018
• 6 June 2018
• 2 May 2018

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.