Username:
Password:
Forgot Password?

September - Professional Conduct Tribunal
Print this Article Print this Article
Email this Article

18 September 2007 
 
Russell Colin Brown CA of Queensland 
 
On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Brown was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with By-law 40(a), in that as the auditor of a company and nine wholly owned subsidiaries ( “the consolidated entity”), he failed to observe a proper standard of professional care, skill or competence in the course of carrying out his professional duties, in that he prepared and issued an unqualified statutory audit report for the company and for the consolidated entity for the year ended 30 June 2004 and an unqualified statutory review report for the consolidated entity for the half year ended 31 December 2004, as a consequence of which he entered into an enforceable undertaking to resign as a registered company auditor by 30 November 2006.  
 
The decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Brown be severely reprimanded and that his firm be subject to an Institute quality review as soon as possible. The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Brown complete and report to the Institute for 80 hours of structured CPE units in his fields of activity by 31 December 2008, and that he be required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action. 

 
18 September 2007 
 
Peter Anthony Lucas CA of Queensland 
 
On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Lucas was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with By-law 40(e), in that on 16 October 2006, the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALDB), being satisfied on the application of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that he had failed, within the meaning of section 1292(2)(d)(ii) of the Corporations Act to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties and functions required by an Australian law to be carried out or performed by a registered liquidator, ordered that:
  1. he be reprimanded;
    2.  
     
  2. he undertake not to accept any new insolvency appointments for a period of three months, or until the fulfilment of all the undertakings in 3. below, whichever is the later;
    3.  
     
  3. he undertake:
    4. (a) that prior to accepting any new insolvency appointments, there be a review conducted of Mr Lucas’s practice systems in place to identify conflict and independence issues, such review to be conducted by a person approved by ASIC and that a report be prepared by that person for provision to him; 
     
    (b) that he provide a copy of the report to ASIC within seven days of receipt of same; 
     
    (c) that he will adopt the recommendations contained in the report; and 
     
    (d) that ASIC be provided with a certificate by the author of the report of compliance with the recommendations contained in the report.
  4. he undertake to complete an additional twelve hours of continuing professional development in the area of ethics, conflicts and independence responsibilities.
    5.  
     
  5. he pay one half of ASIC's costs.
The decision of the Tribunal was that no further sanctions be imposed, having regard to the penalties imposed by the CALDB. the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision were that this matter was in relation to professional independence issues arising in 2000. The Tribunal acknowledges that community perceptions on matters of conflict of interest have changed considerably in recent years. The Tribunal re-emphasises the importance of independence for members of the profession. 
 
18 September 2007 
 
Keith William Parker FCA of New South Wales 
 
On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Parker was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with By-law 40(a), in that as the auditor of a company for the year ended 30 June 2004, he failed to observe a proper standard of professional care, skill or competence in the course of carrying out his professional duties, as a consequence of which he requested the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to cancel his registration as a company auditor.  
 
The decision of the Tribunal was that no sanctions be imposed but that Mr Parker be required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action.