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 2020
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: Mr Christopher Sellars, 049450/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Christopher Sellars is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-laws 4.1a and 4.1b.
Date of hearing: 5 and 6 July 2022
Time: 10:00
Place:

IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s, London, EC4M 7BQ

Name of Respondent: Mr Yuk Ming Aaron Wong, 052372/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Yuk Ming Aaron Wong is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.
Date of hearing: 22 June 2022
Time: 10:00
Place:

Virtual Hearing – 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

Name of Respondent: Mr Andrew Dix - 042738/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Andrew Dix is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-laws 4.1b and 4.1c.
Date of hearing: 7 and 8 June 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 Syed Malik ACA of Uxbridge, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 25 May 2022

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

Between 6 January 2018 and 26 January 2018, Mr Syed Malik ACA, whilst an employee, transferred data which was the property of his employer to his personal device, when he was not authorised to do so, contrary to section 150.1 of ICAEW’s Code of Ethics.

Mr Syed Malik ACA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.

Finding Complaint found proved on Mr Malik’s own admission

Order Severely Reprimanded and ordered to pay costs of £7,125.00

This may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Christopher David Gittins FCA of CHELTENHAM, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 4 May 2022.

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

Complaint 1

Between 19 January 2011 and 25 June 2017 Mr Christopher David Gittins MA FCA failed to comply with paragraph 7 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 as he did not apply customer due diligence measures on all clients when he either:

a. Established the business relationship; and/or

b. Carried out an occasional transaction.

Mr Gittins is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.

Complaint 2

Between 26 June 2017 and 14 May 2020 Mr Christopher David Gittins MA FCA failed to comply with paragraph 27 of The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (information on the payer) Regulations 2017 as he did not apply customer due diligence measures on all clients he either:

a. Established a business relationship;

Mr Gittins is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.

Complaint 3

Between 19 January 2011 and 25 June 2017 Mr Christopher David Gittins MA FCA failed to comply with paragraph 8 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 as he failed conduct ongoing
monitoring of the business relationships he had with all clients.

Mr Gittins is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.

Complaint 4

Between 26 June 2017 and 14 May 2020 Mr Christopher David Gittins MA FCA failed to comply with paragraph 27(8) of The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (information on the payer) Regulations 2017 as he failed conduct ongoing monitoring of the business relationships he had with all clients.

Mr Gittins is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.

Finding: Complaints found proved

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £5,000 and pay costs of £12,042

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Ms Mei Mei Chan of Causeway Bay, HONG KONG SAR

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 27/04/2022

Type of Member
Member

Terms of complaint

On 4 November 2019, the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants made the following findings of fact against Ms Mei Mei Chan FCA regarding her failure to observe, maintain or otherwise apply professional standards issued by the said Institute in relation to the audits of Neo Telemedia Limited for the years ending 30 June 2011 and 30 June 2012, as follows: 

Complaint 1 

Ms Chan, regarding the classification and measurement of contingent consideration in relation to the Ease Ray acquisition in the 2011 Financial Statements, failed to properly perform their audit and comply with the following professional standards:

a. Paragraph 25 of Hong Kong Standard on Auditing (‘HKSA’) 315 ‘Identifying and Assessing the Risks of material Misstatement through Understanding the Entity and its Environment, and 

b. Paragraph 6 of HKSA 330 ‘The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks, and 

c. Paragraph 6 of HKSA 500 ‘Audit Evidence,’ and 

d. Paragraph 20 of HKSA 200 ‘Overall objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit,’ and 

e. Paragraph 18 of HKSA 540 ‘Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures,’ and 

f. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of HKSA 700 ‘Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements 

Complaint 2 

Ms Chan, regarding the prior year adjustment made in the 2012 financial statements to reclassify the Contingent Consideration arising from the Ease Ray acquisition from equity to financial liability, failed to re-measure the opening fair value of the contingent consideration at 01 July 2011 contrary to the requirements of: 

a. Paragraph 6 of HKSA 330 ‘The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks, and 

b. Paragraph 20 of HKSA 200 ‘Overall objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit,’ and 

c. Paragraph 18 of HKSA 540 ‘Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures,’ and 

d. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of HKSA 700 ‘Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements 

Complaint 3 

Ms Chan, regarding the impairment assessment on goodwill and intangible assets arising from the Ease Ray acquisition in the 2011 Financial Statements, failed to properly perform the audit and comply with following professional standards: 

a Paragraph 6 of HKSA 330 ‘The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks, and 

b Paragraph 13 of HKSA 540 ‘Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures,’ and 

c. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of HKSA 500 ‘Audit Evidence.’

Complaint 4 

Ms Chan, regarding the impairment assessment on goodwill in the 2011 Financial Statements arising from the China Wimerto acquisition, failed to properly perform the audit and comply with the following professional standards: 

a Paragraph 6 of HKSA 330 ‘The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks, and 

b Paragraph 13 of HKSA 540 ‘Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures,’ and 

c.   Paragraphs 6 and 8 of HKSA 500 ‘Audit Evidence.’ 

Complaint 5 

Ms Chan, regarding the goodwill and intangibles arising from the Smart Long acquisition on an acquisition date in the 2012 Financial Statements, failed to properly perform the audit and comply with the following professional standards: 

a. Paragraph 13 of HKSA 540 ‘Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures,’ and 

b. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of HKSA 500 ‘Audit Evidence.’ 

Complaint 6 

Ms Chan failed to comply with the fundamental principle of Professional Competence and Due Care of the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (‘COE’) 

Complaint 7 

Ms Chan, in relation to the impairment assessments on goodwill and intangible asserts arising from the China Wimerto acquisition and/or the Smart Long acquisition and/or the Ease Ray acquisition in the 2011 and 2012 Financial Statements in that she failed to properly prepare any or any adequate audit documentation in breach of paragraph 8 and 10 of HKSA 230'

Finding: Complaints found proven on own admission

Order: 

Severe Reprimand
Costs order of £4,000 

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Steven William Miles of Leicester, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 27/04/2022

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

Between 3 August 2020 and 20 August 2020, Mr S W Miles FCA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 3 August 2020, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

Mr Stephen William Miles FCA is therefore to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c

Finding: Proven

Order: 

Severe Reprimand
Fine £5,000
Costs £4,205

It was also ordered that Mr Miles provides the information, as requested by the institute, not later than three weeks after being served the Record of Decision.

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.