ICAEW.com works better with JavaScript enabled.
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: Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd, 047195/MATT
    Complaint
    The complaint is that Begbies Chettle Agar Ltd is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-laws 5.1a and 5.1b.
    Date of hearing:
    16 and 17 July 2024
    Time:
    10:00
    Place:
    IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s, London, EC4M 7BQ.

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Timothy John Vogel FCA059601/MATT 059639/MATT 060638/MATT 060505/MATT 060345/MATT 06107/MATT
    Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Timothy John Vogel FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-laws 4.1a and 4.1c
    Date of hearing: 29, 30 April and 1, 2 and 3 May 2024
    Time: 10:00 on 29 April
    Place: Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mrs Shezba Khan FCA, 056018/MATT
    Complaint: The complaint is that Mrs Shezba Khan FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
    Date of hearing: 24 April 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place: Remote Hearing – please contactdiane.waller@icaew.comfor details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Shahid Shafiq ACA - 064725/MATT
    Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Shahid Shafiq ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 2a.i
    Date of hearing: 11 April 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place: Remote Hearing – please contactdiane.waller@icaew.comfor details

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr William Ross Luke FCA, 066199/MATT
    Complaint:
    The complaint is that Mr William Ross Luke FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1c
    Date of hearing: 9 April 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place:
    IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s London

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr John Redgate ACA, 056570/MATT
    Complaint: The allegation is that Mr John Redgate ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
    Date of hearing: 11, 12 and 13 March 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place: IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul's, London

     

    Name of Respondent: Mr Mark Andrew Thompson ACA, 053422/MATT
    Complaint: The complaint is that Mr Mark Andrew Thompson ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c
    Date of hearing: 5 March 2024
    Time: 10:00
    Place: Remote Hearing – please 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 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.

    Disciplinary committee tribunal committee tribunal summary of decision

    Mr Wai Wing Yip of Kowloon, HONG KONG, United Kingdom

    A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 14 February 2024

    Type of Member Member

    Terms of allegation

    1. Between 7 March 2023 and 22 March 2023, Mr Wai Wing Yip failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 7 March 2023, issued in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 13.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 13.2.

    Therefore, Mr Wai Wing Yip is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1.c

    Finding: Allegation found proved

    Order:  Severely reprimanded

    To pay a Fine of £7,500 and Costs of £5,655.

    Ordered to provide by no later than 29 February 2024 all the information requested by the PCD in its letter to him dated 7 March 2023.

    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 tribunal summary of decision

    Mr Timothy John Vogel [FCA] of Swaffham, United Kingdom

    A tribunal of the Disciplinary Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal complaint on 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 January 2024

    Type of Member Member

    Terms of complaint

    1. Between 2 October 2019 and 1 November 2019, Mr T J Vogel FCA, failed to comply with the Order of the Disciplinary Committee of 1 October 2019 to provide a full response to Paragraph F to PCD, as requested in a letter dated 9 January 2019, within 14 days.

      Mr Timothy John Vogel is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1d (effective from 15 October 2018 to 13 October 2019 and from 14 October 2019).

    2. Mr T J Vogel FCA, as accountant for ‘A’ Limited (formerly ‘B’ Limited) breached section 110.1 of the Code of Ethics (effective 2011 – 2019) in that he did not deal fairly with both shareholders and directors Mr ‘C’ and Ms ‘D’ in the following:

      1. On or before 26 July 2016 Mr Vogel assisted Ms ‘D’ in diverting the trade of ‘A’ Limited to ‘E’ Limited when he knew or should have known that this was to the detriment of Mr ‘C’ who owned 50% of the issued share capital of ‘A’ Limited; and/or
      2. On or before 1 July 2017 Mr Vogel accepted instructions to prepare financial statements for ‘A’ Limited solely from Ms ‘D’ when he knew that Mr ‘C’ and Ms ‘D’ were in dispute and failed to take joint instruction; and/or
      1. Between 31 July 2017 and 26 September 2017 Mr Vogel failed to provide a copy of ‘A’ Limited’s accounts for the year ended 31 October 2016 to Mr ‘C’ when he knew that as director he was entitled to those accounts; and/or
      1. Between 14 February 2018 and 15 November 2018 Mr Vogel furnished Ms ‘D’ with ICAEW’s confidential correspondence on a disciplinary matter to assist her in her response to a court matter relating to Mr ‘C’; and/or
      2. On 6 April 2018 and 17 April 2018, Mr Vogel communicated with an expert valuer appointed to act in the dispute between Ms ‘D’ and Mr ‘C’, to make advocacy points on behalf of Ms ‘D’.

      Mr Timothy John Vogel is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1a (effective bye-laws in force at the time being 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016, 3 October 2016 to 10 October 2017, 11 October 2017 to 14 October 2018 and 15 October 2018 to 13 October 2019).

    3. In or around August 2016 Mr T J Vogel FCA failed to comply with Regulation 3 of the Clients’ Money Regulations (effective 1 January 2011 – 31 December 2016) as he allowed his firm ‘F’ Limited’s client money bank account to be used to receive money and to make payments which were not client’s money.

      Mr Timothy John Vogel is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1c (effective 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016).

    4. On or before 18 April 2018 Mr T J Vogel FCA prepared financial statements for ‘E’ Limited for the period ended 30 June 2017 and on 18 April 2018 approved those accounts as director when he knew they were incorrect because:

      1. the accounts prepared and filed at Companies House were for a dormant company when the company had undertaken transactions in the accounting period; and/or
      2. the accounts did not reflect the transactions undertaken by the company 
        during the accounting period.

      This conduct was contrary to s.110.2 of the Code of Ethics (Effective 1 January 2011– 31 December 2019)

      Mr Timothy John Vogel is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1a (effective 11 October 2017 to 14 October 2018)

    5. On or before 21 July 2017 Mr T J Vogel FCA was responsible for the preparation of the financial statements for ‘A’ Limited (formerly ‘B’ Limited) for the period ended 31 October 2016 including an accountant’s report when they did not comply with the Financial Reporting Standard for Smaller Entities (effective January 2015) “FRSSE”  for the following reasons:

      1. The comparative figures for 2015 shown in the 2016 accounts were not the same as the figures shown in the 2015 accounts as required under Part B, section 2.17 and section 2.23 of FRSSE; and/or
      1. There was no disclosure note reflecting the restatement of the opening balance of reserves as required by Part B, section 2.15 of FRSSE; and/or
      2. The statutory profit and loss disclosure was not in accordance with the requirements of Part B, section 2.9 and 2.10 of FRSSE; and/or
      3. There was no disclosure of accounting policies to explain the differences as required by Part B, section 2.7 of FRSSE; and/or
      4. The disclosure of ‘Directors’ benefits: advances, credits and guarantees’ required under Part B, section 15.11 and 15.15 of FRSSE were absent when there were overdrawn director’s loan accounts at 31 October 2015 and 31 October 2016.

      Mr Timothy John Vogel is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary bye-law 4.1b (effective 3 October 2016 to 10 October 2017).

      Mr Timothy John Vogel is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1d in respect of Complaint 1, DBL 4.1a in respect of Complaints 2 and 4, DBL 4.1c in respect of Complaint 3 and DBL 4.1b in respect of complaint 5.

    Finding: Complaints found proved
    Order: Complaint 1 Severely reprimanded
    Complaints 2-5 Excluded from Membership of ICAEW
    Pay costs of £55,645


    Disciplinary committee tribunal committee tribunal summary of decision

    Mr Richard Arthur Jackson ACA of Hartlepool, United Kingdom

    A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 4 December 2023

    Terms of allegation

    Between 31 October 2019 and 7 February 2023 Mr Richard Jackson ACA failed to submit the ICAEW annual return of ‘A’ Limited for the below year ends:

    1. Year ended 30 September 2019 due by 31 October 2019; and / or
    2. Year ended 30 September 2020 due by 31 October 2020; and / or
    3. Year ended 30 September 2021 due by 31 October 2021; and / or
    4. Year ended 30 September 2022 due by 31 October 2022

    in breach of:

    1. Practice Assurance Regulation 12; and / or
    2. Regulation 2.5 of the Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Regulations.

    Mr Richard Arthur Jackson is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1c

    Finding: Allegation found proved on Mr Jackson’s own admission

    Order: Reprimanded, fined £2,000 and pay costs of £6,545

    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

     

    2019

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 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