Username:
Password:
Forgot Password?

Professional Conduct Tribunal - April 2008
Print this Article Print this Article
Email this Article

22 April 2008 - Keith Cornelius Junius FCA of New South Wales 
 
On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Junius was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with By-law 40(h), in that on 31 October 2007 he became a bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 pursuant to a Sequestration Order being made against his estate by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.  
 
The decision of the Tribunal was that no sanctions be imposed. The Tribunal took into account that the member’s bankruptcy did not reflect on his technical competence, that he is a member of long standing and that he is organising his affairs to cease practice. 
 

 
 
10 April 2008 - Robert Alan Young FCA of Victoria 
 
The Tribunal found a case established that Mr Young was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with:
  1. Bylaw 40(e), in that on 13 September 2005 in King v Yurisich [2005] FCA 1277 the Federal Court of Australia made adverse findings concerning his professional conduct which were subsequently affirmed on appeal on 1 September 2006 by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in King v Yurisich [2006] FCAFC 136.
    2.  
     
  2. By-law 40(a) in that as the auditor of the financial statements of a company for the year ended 30 June 1999 and the signatory of the Statement of Auditor included with a Renewal Application and Annual Financial Review of a Licensed Travel Agent lodged in August 1999 on behalf of the company with the Travel Compensation Fund, he failed to observe a proper standard of professional care skill and competence in the course of carrying out his professional duties.
The decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Young be reprimanded and required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action. In reaching its decision the Tribunal took into account that Mr Young had applied for his registration as a company auditor to be cancelled. 
 
 
 
10 April 2008 - Philip John Helliar CA of Victoria 
 
The Tribunal found a case established that Mr Helliar was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with:
  1. By-law 40(f), in that he has undertaken services which require him to hold a current certificate of public practice when his certificate of public practice had been suspended by the Board pursuant to Regulation 710.4, in breach of By-law 34(a) and Regulation 702.1
    2.  
     
  2. By-law 40(a), in that delays in completing engagements for a client and his related entities and not responding to telephone calls or facsimiles from the client constitutes a failure to observe a proper standard of professional care skill and competence in the course of carrying out his professional duties.
    3.  
     
  3. By-law 40(f), in that: 
     
    (a) he failed to respond to a letter dated 16 November 2007 from the client’s new accountant, in breach of Regulation 1214. 
     
    (b) he failed to make available for collection records requested by the client and his new accountant, in breach of Regulation 1215.
    4.  
     
  4. By-law 40(g) in that he failed to respond to: 
     
    (a) letters from the Professional Conduct Consultant dated 2 August 2007 and 31 October 2007 concerning continuing in practice without a current certificate of public practice; and 
     
    (b) letters from the Professional Conduct Consultant dated 28 November 2007, 20 December 2007 and 8 January 2008 concerning the complaint by a client.
The decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Helliar be excluded from membership of the Institute, that he be fined $5,000 and that he be required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action. The Tribunal also ordered that notification of its decision be given to appropriate professional bodies and regulatory authorities. The Tribunal found the multiple, serious and persistent breaches of the Institute’s By-laws to be unprofessional and unacceptable.