ICAEW.com works better with JavaScript enabled.

Hearings, orders, and decisions

Contents
Back to top
This page gives information about hearings of ICAEW's Tribunals and Appeal Committees, details of future hearings, reports of the findings and other orders made.

Public hearings

Hearings of panels of the Tribunals Committee and Appeal Committee are normally open to the public, but they can sometimes be held in private. The details of public hearings will be published here seven days before the hearing. These details include:

  • the name of the member, firm, affiliate, or relevant person, who is subject to the formal allegation(s);
  • the formal allegation(s); 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 (unless it is being held in private) but they are not entitled to see written material. All written material and information provided by ICAEW or the subject of the formal allegation(s) 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 (apart from cases found not proved). All these decisions can go to an Appeal Committee upon successful application. 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 Fender FCA, 053369/MATT
    Complaint
    		 The complaint is that Mr Andrew Fender FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b.
    Date of hearing:
    		 19 November 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s London, EC4M 7BQ

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Joseph Jackson, 068157/MATT
    Complaint
    		 The complaint is that Mr Joseph Jackson is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
    Date of hearing:
    		 22 October 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

     

    Name of Respondent:

    		 Mr William Ward ACA, 058393/MATT
    Complaint
    		 The complaint is that Mr William Ward ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
    Date of hearing:
    		 25 September 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

     

    Name of Respondent:

    		 Mr Stanley Chicksand, 057433/MATT
    Allegation
    		 The allegation is that Mr Stanley Chicksand is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
    Date of hearing:
    		 23 and 24 September 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s London, EC4M 7BQ

     

    Name of Respondent:

    		 Mr Phillip Powell ACA, 064720/MATT
    Complaint
    		 The complaint is that Mr Phillip Powell ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
    Date of hearing:
    		 17 September 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Gavin Roland Williams FCA, 055074/MATT
    Complaint
    		 The complaint is that Mr Gavin Roland Williams FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
    Date of hearing:
    		 16 to 19 September 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 Remote hearing – please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for more details

     

     Name of Respondent:  Mr Shivam Amin, 061407/MATT
    Complaint
    		 The complaint is that Mr Shivam Amin is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
    Date of hearing:
    		 12 September 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.comfor details

     

    Name of Respondent:

    		 Mr Stuart Sexton, 070850/MATT
    Allegation The allegation is that Mr Stuart Sexton is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c
    Date of hearing:
    		 11 September 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s London, EC4M 7BQ

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Oliver John Plummer FCA, 043930/MATT
    Complaint The complaint is that Mr Oliver John Plummer FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1c
    Date of hearing: 4 September 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place: Remote hearing – please contact ife.thomas@icaew.com for more details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Steven John Wood FCA, 042140/MATT
    Complaint The complaint is that Mr Steven John Wood FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b
    Date of hearing: 3 September 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place: Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Steven Cooke, 060986/MATT, 061736/MATT
    Complaint
    		 The complaint is that Mr Steven Cooke is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b
    Date of hearing:
    		 2 to 6 September 2024
    Time:
    		 10:00
    Place:
    		 Remote hearing – please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for more details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Brownlow-Cloete, 060658/MATT, 061455/MATT & 063812/MATT
    Allegation The complaint is that Mrs Shelagh Brownlow-Cloete is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
    Date of hearing: 14 to 16 August 2024 
    Time: 10:00
    Place: Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Mehernosh Murzban Motashaw, 068460/MATT
    Allegation The allegation is that Mr Mehernosh Murzban Motashaw is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c
    Date of hearing: 13 August 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place: Remote hearing – please contact vanessa.broxham@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 where the formal allegations are found not proved, or where a decision has been made that the matter should not be published. A full report of decisions is available in the ‘Full reports of disciplinary orders and regulatory decisions’ section.

    Tribunal committee tribunal summary of decision

    Mr Joe Hankin Maddrell ACA of Port Erin, United Kingdom

    A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 10 July 2024

    Type of Member Member

    Allegation

    1. Between 10 February 2023 and 28 February 2023, Mr Joe Hankin Maddrell ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 10 February 2023, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

    Mr Joe Hankin Maddrell is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1c (effective 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023

    Finding: Allegation found proved

    Order:

    Severely Reprimanded
    Fined £3,000
    Costs £4,000

    Provide the information requested in a letter dated 10 February 2023

    This decision may be subject to appeal.

    Tribunal committee tribunal summary of decision

    Mr William Ross Luke FCA of East Sheen, United Kingdo

    A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 2 July 2024

    Type of Member Member

    Terms of allegations

    1. Between the following dates, Mr William Luke FCA, engaged in public practice, when he did not hold a practising certificate in breach of Principal Bye-Law 51(a) effective from 29/09/2011, 13/07/2015, 01/10/2016, 11/10/2017 and 10/10/2018:

    a. 8 January 2014 and 1 September 2019; and / or

    b. 15 October 2022 to 23 February 2023.

    Mr William Luke FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1c

    2. Between 8 January 2014 and 1 September 2019, Mr William Luke FCA failed to notify the Members’ Registrar of ICAEW of the formation of ‘A’ & Co as required by the following regulations:

    a. Within 20 business days as required by Practice Assurance Regulation 9 (effective 1 January 2008 until 30 June 2019); and / or

    b. Within 10 business days as required by Practice Assurance Regulation 13 (effective from 1 July 2019); and / or

    c. Within 28 days as required by the Information to be supplied by members Regulation 3 (effective from 1 December 2010).

    Mr William Luke FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1c

    3. Between 15 October 2022 and 23 February 2023, Mr William Luke FCA failed to notify the Members’ Registrar of ICAEW that ‘A’ & Co was continuing to provide accountancy services as required by the following regulations:

    a. Practice Assurance Regulation 13 (effective from 1 July 2019); and / or

    b. Within 28 days as required by the Information to be supplied by members Regulation 3 (effective from 1 December 2010). Mr William Luke FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1c

    4. Between the following dates:

    a. 8 January 2014 and 1 September 2019; and / or

    b. 15 October 2022 and 23 February 2023

    Mr William Luke FCA, as principal of ‘A’ & Co, failed to ensure that their firm was supervised by an appropriate anti-money laundering supervisory authority contrary to:

    a. Parts 1 - 6 of The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (effective 15 December 2007 until 25 June 2017); and / or

    b. Regulation 8, and Parts 1 - 6 and 8 - 11 of The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (effective from 26 June 2017).

    Mr William Luke FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1a

    Finding: Allegations found proved on Mr Luke’s own admission

    Order:
    Severely reprimanded
    Fined £4,700
    Costs £7,000

    This decision may be subject to appeal.

    Tribunal committee tribunal summary of decision

    Mr Hardik Sheth [ACA] of Karnataka, India

    A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 4 June 2024.

    Type of Member Member

    Terms of complaint

    1A. Between 1 January 2021 and 31 July 2021, Mr Hardik Sheth ACA acted dishonestly in that he permitted his application for membership to ICAEW to be plagiarised by Mrs ‘A’;

    This was contrary to Rule 111.1 of the Code of Ethics effective 1 January 2020.

    2. On 19 July 2021, Mr Hardik Sheth ACA sponsored the application of Mrs ‘A’ for ICAEW membership when he knew or should have known that the information contained in her application was not the own work of Mrs ‘A’.

    This was contrary to Rule 115.1 of the Code of Ethics effective 1 January 2020.

    Mr Hardik Sheth is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a for both complaints

    Finding: Complaints found proved

    Order:

    Excluded from membership.

    Fined £0

    Costs £0

    This decision may be subject to appeal.

    Tribunal committee tribunal summary of decision

    Mr Justin Brian Passfield ACA of Isle of Bute, United Kingdom

    A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard formal complaint on 21 May 2024.

    Type of Member Member

    Terms of complaint

    Complaint 2

    Between 1 November 2022 and 31 May 2023, Mr Justin Passfield ACA failed to cooperate promptly and/or in full with the investigation of the complaints made against him, in that he failed to substantively respond to some or all of the correspondence from ICAEW's Professional Conduct Department, as set out below and in breach of Disciplinary Bye-Law 10.7 (effective 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023):

    1. Email dated 1 November 2022
    2. Email dated 21 November 2022
    3. Email dated 8 February 2023
    4. Email and letter dated 14 March 2023

    Mr Justin Passfield ACA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023).

    Finding: Complaint found proved by own admission.

    Order:
    Severe reprimand
    Fined £2,000
    Costs £5,000
    The tribunal also ordered that Mr Passfield sign, date and return to ICAEW, the document entitled Permission to disclose correspondence and documents within 14 days after appeal period has expired.

    This decision may be subject to appeal.

    Disciplinary committee tribunal committee tribunal summary of decision

    Mr Anthony William Mills FCA of BIRMINGHAM, United Kingdom

    A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 29, 30, 31 January and 1 February 2024

    Type of Member Member

    Terms of Complaint

    Between 01 July 2015 and 08 June 2016, Mr Anthony Mills FCA, as sole director and owner of “A’ Ltd, allowed letters to be sent on behalf of ‘A’ Ltd to the Individuals as set out in Schedule B which stated the following:

    1. “If you follow the checklist overleaf and complete the simple forms enclosed, we can
      check to ensure that you are obtaining the correct amount of tax relief”; and
    2. “We will ensure that your current year reliefs are correct and that your future
      allowances are adjusted in line with the current year to ensure you are no longer being overtaxed. There will be no charge for this service”; and
    3. “We will also check the earlier years you indicate on the form to determine if you
      can claim back previously overpaid tax.”

    By allowing the above letters to be sent, Mr Mills breached section 110.1 of the Code of Ethics in that he did not deal fairly with the individuals in Schedule B because he knew ‘A’ Ltd would not perform any or all of the above independent verification checks;

    and/or

    By allowing the above letters to be sent, Mr Mills breached section 110.2(a) of the Code of Ethics in that he knew that the letters sent to the individuals in Schedule B contained materially false statements regarding the checks because he knew ‘A’ Ltd would not perform any or all of the above independent verification checks.

    Schedule B:

    Name

    Date OTR form completed by individual
    Miss W July 2015
    Mr C September 2015
    Mrs S July 2015
    Miss A May 2010

    Mr Anthony William Mills is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1.a

    Finding: Complaint found proved

    Order: Reprimand and ordered to pay costs of £30,000

    This decision may be subject to appeal

    Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

    Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd of London, United Kingdom

    A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 15-17 May 2023

    Type of Member Firm

    Terms of complaint

    Complaint 1

    1. Between 24 June 2013 and 27 June 2016, in acting for their client, ‘A’ Limited, Begbies Chettle Agar Limited breached the fundamental principle of professional competence and due care in that Begbies Chettle Agar Limited:

    1. failed to disclose to the directors of ‘A’ Limited that an individual was using ‘A’ Limited’s funds for the purchase of goods and services not associated with the affairs of ‘A’ Limited; and/or
    2. failed to disclose to the directors of ‘A’ Limited that an individual was loaning money to and repaying money from ‘A’ Limited.

    Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 5.1ab (effective 29 September 2011 to 23 July 2013, 24 July 2013 2016 to 31 December 2015, and 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016)

    Complaint 2

    2. Begbies Chettle Agar Limited prepared incorrect statutory accounts on behalf of ‘A’ Limited:

    1. for the year ended 30 September 2012 in that they did not include related party transaction and/or director’s remuneration disclosures as required by the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (Effective April 2008); and/or
    2. for the year ended 30 September 2013 in that they did not include related party transaction and/or director’s remuneration disclosures as required by the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (Effective April 2008); and/or
    3. for the year ended 30 September 2014 in that they did not include related party transaction and/or director’s remuneration disclosures as required by the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (Effective April 2008); and/or
    4. for the year ended 30 September 2015 in that they included a debtor owing from an individual for £7,932.58 as an outstanding banking.

    Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 5.1b (effective 29 September 2011 to 23 July 2013, 24 July 2013 2016 to 31 December 2015, and 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016)

    Complaint 3

    3. Begbies Chettle Agar Limited issued accountants’ certificates confirming that annexed service charge statements were sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts, and other documents, and were fair summaries complying with Section 21(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, however the firm’s working paper files for the following periods included inadequate evidence of testing to support the certificates:

    1. Service charge account for the year ended 30 September 2012; Accountants’ Certificate dated 24 June 2013; and/or
    2. Service charge account for the year ended 30 September 2014; Accountants’ Certificate dated 17 June 2014; and/or
    3. Service charge account for the year ended 30 September 2015; Accountants’ Certificate dated 27 June 2016.

    Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 5.1a (effective 29 September 2011 to 23 July 2013, 24 July 2013 2016 to 31 December 2015, and 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016)

    Complaint 4

    4. Contrary to section 210 of the Code of Ethics, between 30 March 2017 and 10 April 2018, Begbies Chettle Agar Limited did not substantively provide all of the information requested by ‘A’ Limited and ‘A’ Limited’s new accountant.

    Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 5.1a (effective 29 September 2011 to 23 July 2013, 24 July 2013 2016 to 31 December 2015, and 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2018 2016)

    Complaint 5

    5. Between 18 October 2017 and 10 April 2018, Begbies Chettle Agar Limited did not provide such details as are reasonable to enable their client to understand the basis on which the fee account has been prepared, contrary to section 240 of the Code of Ethics.

    Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 5.1a (effective 29 September 2011 to 23 July 2013, 24 July 2013 2016 to 31 December 2015, and 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2018 2016)

    Finding: All complaints found proved

    Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £20,000 and pay costs of £35,315

    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 must be published unless there is a decision by a committee not to do so.

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

    2024

    2023

     

    2022

     

    2021

     

    2020

  • 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 Head of Committees and Tribunals. The regulations governing such an application can be found in the Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations.

    An application needs to be made within 21 days of service of the documents sent by the Head of Committees and Tribunals further to Regulation 39.2 of the Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations. These are the documents sent once allegations have been referred from the Conduct Committee to the Tribunals Committee.

    An application can be made by ICAEW's Conduct Department or by the subject of the formal allegation(s) under regulation 39.1(b) and 39.2(c), as appropriate. If the subject of the formal allegation(s) makes an application under regulation 39.2(c), Conduct Counsel may file a written response to the Head of Committees and Tribunals 7 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 the Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations 39.1, 39.2 and 43.1.

    Pursuant to regulation 43.2, 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 appropriate to do so in the interests of justice or for any other exceptional reason provided that:

    a. the 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 chair shall give the parties a summary of reasons for allowing or dismissing any application made under regulation 39.1(b) or 39.2(c). An application can also be made to a panel of the Tribunals Committee at any final hearing, if the applying party can 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 final hearing, you may still ask the Tribunals Committee panel whether it is prepared to proceed in private. This would usually be on the first day of a hearing, but the panel 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 is necessary to protect the identity of a third party. However, we can never guarantee anonymity.

    When a panel agrees to hold all or part of the hearing in private, it gives its reasons on the day, and in public, unless such reasons as are given, do not, in the opinion of the panel, unreasonably undermine the purpose of proceeding in private. The panel also gives these reasons in writing if the formal allegations are found proved.

    The panel 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. When it decides whether to exclude anyone, the panel considers:

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

    The panel will assess whether these factors outweigh the public interest in holding a public hearing. The panel must also be satisfied that both parties have been given an opportunity to make representations.

Disciplinary records search

Publications

Useful links