Username:
Password:
Forgot Password?

Appeal / Conduct Tribunals - March 2008
Print this Article Print this Article
Email this Article

APPEAL TRIBUNAL 
 
18 March 2008 - Paul Lom CA of Victoria 
 
The Appeal Tribunal heard an appeal against the determinations and sanctions imposed by the Professional Conduct Tribunal on 7 December 2007. The Professional Conduct Tribunal had found a case established that Mr Lom was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with By-law 40 (f), in that when preparing a valuation of the equity interest of a company in another company, he: 
 
(a) omitted material information from his valuation report, in breach of paragraph 19 of APS 11; 
 
(b) failed to observe the provisions of Expert Witness Code of Conduct, in breach of paragraph 24 of APS 11. 
 
The decisions of the Appeal Tribunal were:

  1. to affirm that determination of the Professional Conduct Tribunal that the allegations had been established;
    2.  
     
  2. to affirm the determination of the Professional Conduct Tribunal that, having regard to the need for members to comply strictly with the Institute’s standards and By-laws, Mr Lom be reprimanded, and that he be required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action.
    3.  
     
  3. to order that Mr Lom be required to pay $800 plus GST towards the costs incurred by the Institute in the hearing of the appeal.
 
 
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT TRIBUNAL 
 
5 March 2008 - Gary John Anderson CA of Western Australia 
 
On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Anderson was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with By-law 40(e), in that on 21 December 2006 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) having affirmed the decision by the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (“the Board”) made on 30 August 2006 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 in relation to the administration of a company: 
 
A. varied the orders made by the Board on 15 November 2006, by ordering that:
  1. he be reprimanded;
    2.  
     
  2. he be required to give undertakings to obtain reports on the adequacy of the investigation under s438A(a), the report under s439(4)(a) and the statement under S439A(4)(b) relating to the next ten voluntary administrations to which he is appointed, and to complete an additional 12 hours of continuing professional development in the area of adequate and proper performance of the duties of an administrator.
B. reaffirmed the order by the Board that he pay 85% of ASIC’s costs. 
 
The decision of the Tribunal was that, having regard to the penalties already applied, no further sanctions be imposed. 
 
 
 
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT TRIBUNAL 
 
5 March 2008 - Nadine Michelle Maitland CA of Western Australia 
 
The Tribunal found a case established that Mrs Maitland was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with:
  1. Bylaw 40(a), in that:
    2.  
     
    (a) delays in completing an engagement to incorporate a company for client A and not responding to emails and other requests by the client for information about progress with the engagement ; and 
     
    (b) delays in completing an income tax return for client B for the year ended 30 June 2006 resulting in the client incurring a late lodgement penalty, and not responding to requests from the client about her undertaking to pay the penalty, 
     
    constitute a failure to observe a proper standard of professional care skill and competence in the course of carrying out her professional duties. 
     
  2. By-law 40(g), in that :
    3.  
     
    (a) she failed to respond to letters from the Institute dated 13 November 2007, 5 December 2007 and 8 January 2008 concerning the complaint by client A. 
     
    (b) she failed to respond to letters from the Institute dated 28 November 2007, 20 December 2007 and 8 January 2008 concerning the complaint by client B.
The decision of the Tribunal was that Mrs Maitland be excluded from membership of the Institute. The Tribunal also ordered that notification of its decision be given to appropriate professional bodies and regulatory authorities.