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 Shane Biddlecombe, 032462/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Shane Biddlecombe is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
Date of hearing: 27 and 28 February 2023
Time: 10:00
Place: IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s, London, EC4M 7BQ
Name of Respondent: Mr Avinash Kumar, 049703/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Avinash Kumar is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing: 25 January 2023
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual hearing - please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgeman FCA, 051254/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Peter Bridgeman is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1c
Date of hearing: 18 January 2023
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual hearing - please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent: Mr Mohammad Ramtoola FCA, 043885/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Mohammad Ramtoola FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
Date of hearing: 6 and 7 December 2022
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent: Mr Leon Chan, 050861/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Leon Chan is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1e
Date of hearing: 1 December 2022
Time: 14:00
Place: Virtual hearing – please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for details.
Name of Respondent: Mr Malcolm Roy Bass, 054335/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Malcolm Roy Bass is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
Date of hearing: 1 December 2022
Time: 10:00
Place: Virtual 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 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 Stephen Bloomer of Swansea, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 31 October 2022

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1. Between 6 April 2011 and 20 September 2020, Mr Stephen Bloomer ACA was engaged in public practice without holding a practising certificate contrary to Principal Bye-law 51a.

2. Between 15 December 2007 and 25 November 2014 Mr Stephen Bloomer ACA failed to ensure that he was supervised by an appropriate anti-money laundering supervisory authority contrary to Regulation 3 and 33, and Parts 1-6 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007.

3. Mr Stephen Bloomer ACA, as principal of ‘A’ Limited, failed to ensure the firm was supervised by an appropriate anti-money laundering supervisory authority:

a. between 26 November 2014 and 25 June 2017 contrary to Regulation 3 and 33, and Parts 1-6 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007; and/or
b. between 26 June 2017 and 20 September 2020 contrary to Regulation 8, and Parts1-6 and 8-11 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer)  Regulations 2017.

4. Mr Stephen Bloomer ACA, on behalf of ‘A’ Limited, failed to notify their clients, in writing, of the name of the principal to be contacted if they wish to make a complaint and their right to complain to ICAEW, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-Law 11.1.

Mr Stephen Bloomer is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1a for complaints 2 and 3 and Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c for complaints 1 and 4. 

Finding: Tribunal found the four complaints against Mr Bloomer proved.

Order:

  • Exclusion for Complaint 1
  • Severe reprimand for Complaints 2 and 3
  • Reprimand for Complaint 4.
  • Fined £7,000.00 and to pay costs of £12,350.00

This decision may be subject to appeal.

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Andrew James Wilson FCA of READING, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 20 and 21 September 2022

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1A. Between 31 January 2015 and 10 June 2016 Mr Andrew James Wilson FCA as director of ‘B’ Limited dishonestly failed to declare output tax of £18,000 in its VAT return for the quarter ending 31 January 2015 or at all on an invoice dated 31 December 2014, for the sale of intellectual property to ‘C’ Limited, a company owned and controlled by Mr Wilson when he knew that corresponding input VAT entries had been included by ‘C’ Limited in its VAT returns for the quarters ending 30 September 2015 and 31 December 2015. 

and / or

1B. Between 31 January 2015 and 11 October 2016 Mr Andrew James Wilson FCA as director of ‘B’ Limited was reckless in failing to declare output tax of £18,000 in its VAT return for the quarter ending 31 January 2015 or at all on an invoice dated 31 December 2014, for the sale of intellectual property to ‘C’ Limited, a company owned and controlled by Mr Wilson and when he knew, or should have known, that corresponding input VAT entries had been included by ‘C’ Ltd in its VAT returns for the quarters ending 30 September 2015 and 31 December 2015

This breached the fundamental principle of integrity, in particular section 110 of the ICAEW Code of Ethics. 

2. Between 2 September 2019 and 3 August 2020 Mr Andrew James Wilson FCA repeatedly failed to respond promptly and in full to the Head of Staff. This was a breach under Disciplinary Bye-law 10.7. 

Mr Andrew James Wilson FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a in respect of the complaints.

Finding: Complaints found proved

Order: Excluded from membership, fined £10,000 and pay costs of £24,955 

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

Ms Lisa Elizabeth Richards FCCA of LICHFIELD, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 13 September 2022

Type of Member Affiliate

Terms of complain

Complaint 1

On 12 February 2014, Ms Lisa Richards FCCA signed, on behalf of ‘A’ LLP, an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 July 2013 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with:

a. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 250A ‘Consideration of laws and regulations in an audit of financial statements’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that:

i. share redemptions made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act 2006; and/or

ii. director’s loans made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act 2006 and/or The Corporation Tax Act 2010

and/or

b. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances;

and/or

c. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 230 ‘Audit Documentation’ as they failed to prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit to understand the work that had been performed in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/ or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances;

and/or

d. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 510 ‘Initial Audit Engagements—Opening Balances’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence as to whether the opening balances contained material misstatements which may materially affect the current period’s financial statements.

Complaint 2

On 12 February 2014, Ms Lisa Richards FCCA signed, on behalf of ‘A’ LLP, an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 July 2013 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 510 ‘Initial Audit Engagements— Opening Balances’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence as to whether the opening balances contained material misstatements which may materially affect the current period’s financial statements.

Complaint 3 

On 23 December 2014, Ms Lisa Richards FCCA signed, on behalf of ‘A’ LLP, an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 July 2014 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with:

a. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 250A ‘Consideration of laws and regulations in an audit of financial statements’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that:

i. share redemptions made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act 2006; and/or

ii. director’s loans made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act 2006 and/or The Corporation Tax Act 2010;

and/or

b. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/ or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances;

and/or

c. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 230 ‘Audit Documentation’ as they failed to prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit to understand the work that had been performed in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/ or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances;

Complaint 4

On 25 January 2016, Ms Lisa Richards FCCA signed, on behalf of ‘A’ LLP, an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 July 2015 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with:

a. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 250A ‘Consideration of laws and regulations in an audit of financial statements’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that:

i. share redemptions made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act 2006; and/or

ii. director’s loans made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act 2006 and/or The Corporation Tax Act 2010;

and/or

b. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances; and/ or

iii. recoverability of related party balances; and/or

iv. accrued income;

and/or

c. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 230 ‘Audit Documentation’ as they failed to prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit to understand the work that had been performed in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances; and/or

iii. recoverability of related party balances; and/or

iv. accrued income;

and/or

d. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 450 ‘Evaluation of misstatements identified during the audit’ as they failed to conclude whether misstatements identified in accrued income testing were material individually or in aggregate.

Complaint 5

On 25 January 2016, Ms Lisa Richards FCCA signed, on behalf of ‘A’ LLP, an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 July 2015 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with:

a. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions in respect of:

i. recoverability of related party balances; and/or

ii. accrued income;

and/or

b. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 230 ‘Audit Documentation’ as they failed to prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit to understand the work that had been performed in respect of:

i. recoverability of related party balances; and/or

ii. accrued income;

and/or

c. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 450 ‘Evaluation of misstatements identified during the audit’ as they failed to conclude whether misstatements identified in 
accrued income testing were material individually or in aggregate.

Complaint 6

On 14 October 2016, Ms Lisa Richards FCCA signed, on behalf of ‘A’ LLP, an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 July 2016 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with:

a. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 250A ‘Consideration of laws and regulations in an audit of financial statements’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that:

i. share redemptions made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act 2006; and/or

ii. director’s loans made within the year were compliant with The Companies Act2006 and/or The Corporation Tax Act 2010;

and/or

b. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances; and/or

iii. recoverability of related party balances; and/or

and/or

c. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 230 ‘Audit Documentation’ as they failed to prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit to understand the work that had been performed in respect of:

i. share redemptions and distributable profits; and/or

ii. recoverability of directors’ loan balances; and/or

iii. recoverability of related party balances.

Complaint 7

On 14 October 2016, Ms Lisa Richards FCCA signed, on behalf of ‘A’ LLP, an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 July 2016 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with:

a. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as they failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to draw reasonable conclusions in respect of recoverability of related party balances;

and/ or

b. International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 230 ‘Audit Documentation’ as they failed to prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit to understand the work that had been performed in respect of recoverability of related party balances.

Ms Lisa Elizabeth Richards is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a

Finding: Complaints found proved on Ms Richard’s own admission

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £10,000 and pay costs of £13,715

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr David Michael Barry Davies ACA of CARDIGAN, United Kingdom

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

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1. On or before 9 March 2020 Mr David Michael Barry Davies ACA prepared the financial statements of Company ‘A’ for the year ended 31 December 2019 when they did not comply with Financial Reporting Standard 102 “The Financial Reporting Standard Applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland” including the provisions of Section 1A “Small Entities” for the following reasons:

i. The 2018 comparative figures are not shown in the 2019 financial statements; 

and / or

ii. Note 4 shows fixed assets brought forward at 31 December 2018 of £116,882 yet the 2018 financial statements show fixed assets of £21,205;

and / or

iii. The tangible fixed assets are not depreciated and there is not an appropriate accounting policy;

and / or 

iv. The balance sheet shows general reserves brought forward of £136,706 yet the 2018 financial statements have reserves carried forward of £21,205;

and / or

v. The financial statements did not include the names all of directors; and / or 

vi. The financial statements have a report of the director (singular) when there are multiple directors; and / or 

vii. The accounts state that they were approved by a director when there are multiple directors; and / or

viii. The Company information page does not include the name of the company secretary;

and / or

ix. The accounts state that they were approved by Mr ‘B’ as director on 9 March 2020, when the accounts do not include his details as a director on pages 1.

Mr David Michael Barry Davies is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b1 (effective 14 October 2019).

Finding: Tribunal found the complaints against Mr Davies proved

Order: Reprimand. To pay a fine of £3,000.00 and costs of £7,535.00

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.