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 Abdul Rasul Virji,FCA  -  050265/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Abdul Rasul Virji FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b
Date of hearing: 5 April 2022
Time: 10:00
Place:

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

Name of Respondent: Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan - 052565/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b
Date of hearing: 8 March 2022
Time: 14:00
Place:

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

Name of Respondent: Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan - 048236/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b and 4.1c
Date of hearing: 8 March 2022
Time: 10:00
Place:

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

Name of Respondent: Miss Ann Melissa Namubiru, 043388/MATT
Complaint: The complaint is that Miss Ann Melissa Namubiru is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing: 2 March 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: 28 February 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

Mr Thomas Edward Bridge FCA of Crew, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 9 November 2021 and 21 December 2021

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

1. Between November 2015 and 8 February 2019, in advising and representing his client, Mr ‘A’, in relation to Mr ‘A’s late registration for VAT, Mr T Edward Bridge FCA breached the fundamental principle of professional competence and due care and / or acted contrary to section 130.1 of the Code of Ethics in that:

a. Mr Bridge failed to carry out a review of monthly turnover figures for Mr ‘A’s business to work out rolling 12 month turnover figures to identify the correct Effective Date of Registration before completing the VAT 1 form; and / or

b. Mr Bridge failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that Mr ‘A’ had made an unprompted disclosure of his failure to register for VAT to HMRC through the normal process as quickly as possible; and / or

c. Mr Bridge failed to provide any or adequate advice to Mr ‘A’ after the discovery that Mr ‘A’s trading turnover had exceeded the threshold for VAT registration to mitigate his VAT liability; and / or

d. Mr Bridge demonstrated poor or out of date knowledge of the applicable VAT legislation in his dealings with HMRC including, but not limited to, which claims for relief could be made and / or the normal methodology used to identify the Effective Date of Registration and / or the relevant factors for the imposition of penalties for late registration and / or the purpose of the Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme; and / or

e. Mr Bridge failed to protect his client’s right to appeal against the VAT assessment, the rejection of his client’s claim for exception for registration and / or the imposition of a penalty by failing to submit notices of appeal by the relevant deadlines; and / or

f. Mr Bridge failed to protect his client’s appeal rights in his completion of the notice of appeal and / or in advancing irrelevant grounds and arguments at the First Tier Tax Tribunal (“FTT”), creating confusion for the FTT and / or leading to criticisms of Mr Bridge within the FTT judgment.

2. Between December 2016 and May 2019, Mr T Edward Bridge FCA breached the fundamental principle of professional behaviour in his conduct and behaviour during his representation of his client, Mr ‘A’, in relation to his late registration for VAT in that:

a. Mr Bridge acted in a discourteous and / or impolite way in his correspondence with Miss ‘B’, a junior officer at HMRC; and / or

b. Mr Bridge attempted on numerous occasions and without any substantive merit to complain about the handling of Mr ‘A’s case by Miss ‘B’ to various senior officers within HMRC (including the Chief Executive Officer) and the ISBC Complaints Office; and / or

c. Mr Bridge acted in a discourteous and / or impolite way in his correspondence with Ms ‘C’ of the ISBC Complaints Office; and / or

d. Mr Bridge made numerous personal criticisms and complaints about the competence of Judge Thomas in his letter of May 2019 to Judge Sinfield

Finding: The tribunal found the complaints proved

Order: Mr Bridge was severely reprimanded and ordered to pay costs of £23,209

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Charles Prudence of
Chelmsford, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 15/12/2021

Type of Member Provisional Member

Terms of complaint

Between July 2018 and September 2019, Mr Charles Prudence produced the audit working papers, as set out in Schedule A, which he signed off as a record of audit work he had undertaken in respect of the audits set out in Schedule A.

This conduct was dishonest because Mr Prudence knew he had not undertaken the work as documented, rather he had deliberately copied all or part of the working papers from the previous year and changed the dates to make it appear that the work had been completed by him in the current year.

Schedule A:

No No Firm’s working paper reference Name of the working paper PCD document reference
‘A’ School y/e 31 August 2019
1 BB2
Expenses Review
14, 21
2 BB3
Charge Card Review
13, 20
3 H11
Income Walkthrough
12, 19
4 H16
Income Depth Testing
11, 18
5 J13
Purchase Depth Test
10, 17
6 M11
Employee Existence Test
9, 16
7 M12
Payroll Walkthrough
8, 15
‘B’ Academy Trust y/e 31 August 2018
8 J13
Purchase Depth Test
22, 23
‘C’ Ltd y/e 31 December 2018
9 M4
Employees existence test
24, 25
‘D’ Academy Trust y/e 31 August 2018
10 BB2
Regularity Expenditure Review
30, 35
11 BB3
Regularity Credit Card Review
29, 34
12 H13
Income Depth test
28, 33
13 M5
Employee existence
26, 31
14 M11
Payroll Walkthrough
27, 32
‘E’ Ltd y/e 30 June 2018
15 M8
Employee Existence
36, 37
‘F’ Limited y/e 30 June 2018
16 M8
Wages Walkthrough Test
38, 39
‘G’ School y/e 31 August 2019
17 BB2
AO/FD/Employee Expenses Review
48, 56
18 BB3
Credit card review
47, 55
19 H6
Material Non-Grant Walkthroughs
46, 54
20 H7
Income Depth Testing
45, 53
21 I4
Cashbook review
44, 52
22 J10
Purchase Walkthrough Test
43, 51
23 J11
Purchase depth test
42, 50
24 M4
Payroll walkthrough
41, 49
25 M7
Employee existence
40, 62
‘G’ School y/e 31 August 2018
26 BB2
AO/FD/Employee Expenses Review
56, 61
27 BB3
Credit card review
55, 60
28 H7
Income Depth Testing
53, 59
29 J11
Purchase depth test
50, 58
30 M7
Employee existence
57, 62

Mr Charles Prudence is therefore liable to Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a

Finding: Proven on own admission

Order: Unfit to become a Member

Costs of £7215.

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mrs Wendy Bartram on behalf of Ian R. Collins & Co. of

Dronsfield, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 16 November 2021

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

Between 3 December 2020 and 22 December 2020, Mrs Wendy Bartram ACA, on behalf of Ian R Collins and Co., failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 3 December 2020, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2

Mrs Bartram is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c of the Disciplinary Bye-Laws effective from 14 October 2019.

Finding: Complaints found proved on own admission

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £2,000 and pay costs of £3,610

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Ian R. Collins & Co. of

Dronfield, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 16 November 2021

Type of Member Member Firm

Terms of complaint

1. Ian R Collins & Co failed to comply with Practice Assurance Regulations 4 and 8 in that it did not cooperate with ICAEW, or its staff carrying out functions under the Practice Assurance scheme in the following respects. Ian R Collins & Co has failed:

A) Between 13 November 2018 and 4 February 2020, to supply information requested in a letter from ICAEW dated 23 October 2018 in relation to its Practice Assurance review; and/or

B) Ian R Collins & Co failed to comply with Practice Assurance Regulations 4 and 8 in that it did not cooperate with ICAEW, or its staff carrying out functions under the Practice Assurance scheme in the following respects. Ian R Collins & Co has failed:

Between 29 January 2019 and 4 February 2020, to address the follow up matters arising from a Quality Assurance Department (QAD) visit on 12 September 2018 by not responding to an e-mail from ICAEW dated 14 January 2019.

1. Ian R Collins & Co failed to comply with the DPB (Investment Business) Regulations in that it has failed:

A) Between 2 November 2018 and 4 February 2020 to comply with Regulation 2.07(a) of the DPB (Investment Business) Handbook in that it failed to demonstrate to ICAEW that it was compliant with Regulation 4.15 of the DPB (Investment Business Handbook).

B) Ian R Collins & Co failed to comply with Regulation 2.07b of the DPB (Investment Business) Handbook in that, it failed to deal with the Institute in an open and co-operative manner in the following respect:

Between 29 January 2019 and 4 February 2020, it failed to respond to the follow up matters arising from a Quality Assurance Department (QAD) visit on 12 September 2018, by not responding to an e-mail from the Institute dated 14 January 2019.

Ian R. Collins & Co. is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 5.1c of the Disciplinary Bye-Laws effective from 15 October 2018.

Finding: Complaints found proved on firm’s own admission

Order: Severely reprimanded, fined £4,000 and pay costs of £7,489

This decision may be subject to appeal

Appeal committee panel decision

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Martin Spencer Ashcroft of

BURY, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 20/10/2021

Type of Member: Member

Terms of Complaint

  1. Between 13 May 2020 and 29 May 2020, Mr Martin Ashcroft FCA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 13 May 2020, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

Finding: Proven on own admission

Order:

Costs £2,875

Fine £3,000

Supply information as requested by letter of 13 May 2020, not layer than 17 November 2021

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Charles Roderick Spencer Fowler of

REIGATE, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 20/10/2021

Type of Member: Member

Terms of Complaint

  1. Between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2018, Mr Charles Fowler FCA failed to comply with Regulation 20(h) of the Clients’ Money Regulations, in that he withdrew money from his firm’s client money bank accounts without written authority of the relevant client on any or all of the occasions listed in Appendix 1a and/or 1b
  2. Between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2018, Mr Charles Fowler FCA failed to comply with Regulation 13 of the Clients’ Money Regulations, in that he failed to ensure that money in excess of £10,000 for any one client held for more than 30 days was paid into a separately designated bank account in the name of the relevant client, on any or all of the occasions listed in Appendix 2.
  3. Between 1 January 2012 and 31 March 2018, Mr Charles Fowler FCA failed to comply with Regulation 21 of the Clients’ Money Regulations, in that he caused or permitted funds to be withdrawn from the firm’s client account which were greater than the credit balances held for the relevant client on any or all of the occasions listed in Appendix 3.
  4. Between 14 March 2018 and 1 February 2021, Mr Charles Fowler FCA failed to comply with Disciplinary Bye-law 10.7 in that he did not co-operate promptly and in full with the investigation of the complaints made against him.

Finding: 

Complaints 1, 2 and 3 found proven

Complaint 4, not proven

Order:

Excluded

Fine £27, 006

Cost £15,000

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan of

LONDON, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 19 October 2021.

Terms of Complaint

  1. Between 24 December 2020 and 16 January 2021 Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 23 December 2020, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.
  2. Between 12 January 2021 and 28 January 2021 Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 11 January 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.
  3. Between 7 January 2021 and 23 January 2021, Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 6 January 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.
  4. Between 21 January 2021 and 6 February 2021, Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 20 January 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.
  5. Between 21 January 2021 and 6 February 2021, Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 20 January 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.
  6. Between 29 January 2021 and 13 February 2021, Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 28 January 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.
  7. Between 9 February 2021 and 26 February 2021, Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 8 February 2021, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.
  8. Between 31 March 2021 and 17 April 2021, Mr Adrian Duncan ACA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 30 March 2021.

Mr Adrian Duncan ACA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c.

Finding: Complaints 1-8 found proved

Order: Excluded, fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,892.50

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan of

LONDON, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 19 October 2021.

Terms of Complaint

1. That between 20 November 2019 and 17 May 2020 Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan ACA, in his capacity as liquidator of ‘A’ Limited, failed to comply with the fundamental principles of Professional Competence and Due Care and / or Professional Behaviour in accordance with the Code of Ethics Part D by:

a. Repeatedly failing to provide information and responses to questions raised by Mr ‘B’; and / or

b. Failing to provide the relevant authority to HM Revenue & Customs.

2. That Mr Adrian Stewart Duncan ACA, in his capacity as liquidator of ‘A’ Limited breached paragraph 3.7 of the Insolvency Licencing Regulations as he failed to comply with Section 92A Insolvency Act 1986 read with Rule 18.7 of the Insolvency Rules (England and Wales) 2016 in that his first annual report was not filed with the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed period of two months following the anniversary of the liquidation.

If proven, Mr Duncan is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b in respect of complaint 1 and 4.1c in respect of complaint 2.

Finding: 

Complaint 1a and 1b found proved

Complaint 2 found proved on Mr Duncan’s own admission

Order: Excluded and pay costs of £8,487.50

This decision may be subject to appeal

Disciplinary committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Paul Dyer of

NOTTINGHAM, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 06/10/2021

Type of Member Member

Terms of Complaint

Complaint 1

Between 28 April 2011 and 12 October 2016 Mr Paul Dyer FCA failed to comply with regulation 10 of the Client’s Money Regulations as he received clients’ money totalling £267,083.69 which was paid into his firm’s office account and not immediately paid into a client bank account.

Complaint 2

Between 8 October 2012 and 18 March 2013, Mr Paul Dyer FCA failed to comply with regulation 13 of the Clients’ Money Regulations as on two occasions he failed to ensure that where money in relation to any one client in excess of £10,000 was held for more than 30 days the money was paid into a separate designated bank account for that client.

Complaint 3

Between May 2011 and May 2016 Mr Paul Dyer FCA failed to comply with paragraph 7 of The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 in that he did not carry out and document customer due diligence and risk assessments on all clients.

Complaint 4

In or around February 2016 Mr Paul Dyer FCA prepared the financial statements for ‘A’ Limited for the year ended 31 January 2016 which did not comply with UK GAAP as:

a) The balance sheet was not in the format prescribed by FRS 102

b) The profit and loss account was not in the format prescribed by FRS 102

c) The following disclosure notes were not included:

i) Accounting Policies

ii) Number of employees

iii) Stock and/or work in progress

iv) Related party

d) The required Statement of Compliance with the accounting standard was not
included

e) Proposed dividends had been shown as a liability at the year end

f) The accountant’s report included a ‘true and fair view’ opinion which is not appropriate as no audit had been undertaken

Complaint 5

In or around February 2017 Mr Paul Dyer FCA prepared the financial statements for ‘A’ Limited for the year ended 31 January 2017 which did not comply with UK GAAP as:

a) The balance sheet was not in the format prescribed by FRS 102

b) The profit and loss account was not in the format prescribed by FRS 102

c) The following disclosure notes were not included:

i) Accounting Policies

ii) Number of employees

iii) Stock and/or work in progress

iv) Related party

d) The required Statement of Compliance with the accounting standard was not
included

e) Proposed dividends had been shown as a liability at the year end

f) The accountant’s report included a ‘true and fair view’ opinion which is not appropriate as no audit had been undertaken

Finding: Proven on own admission

Order: Excluded from membership

Costs Order £12316

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.