Sipra, R (on the application of) v Association Of Chartered Certified Accountants

In a disciplinary hearing conducted by telephone, procedural unfairness is not established merely because the registrant could not see the tribunal or witnesses. The court must assess the circumstances as a whole, including whether the registrant objected, sought an adjournment, or agreed to proceed.

A late-disclosure complaint requires proof of material prejudice. Where the registrant has previously seen the documents, their later formal reliance may not justify an adjournment. A disciplinary tribunal may admit hearsay where doing so remains consistent with justice and fairness, leaving the evidence’s weight to be assessed later. An alleged misunderstanding of the case will not justify judicial review where the tribunal understood the essential contention and the error was immaterial.

The claimant sought judicial review of an appeal committee decision of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. The committee had upheld disciplinary findings involving dishonesty, maintained the claimant’s removal from the register for at least five years, ordered costs, and directed publication of his name.

The challenge concerned alleged breaches of the disciplinary regulations, refusal to adjourn, admission of hearsay evidence, unfairness arising from participation by telephone from Pakistan, and alleged misapprehension of the claimant’s case concerning an email address and LinkedIn profile. Earlier grounds had been rejected on the papers by Mr David Foxton QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. Collins J later directed that revised grounds be put in writing for determination on renewal.

1. The renewed application was refused. None of the proposed grounds disclosed an arguable basis for judicial review of the appeal committee’s decision.
2. The challenge was formally directed to the appeal committee. A claimant must exhaust the available appeal process and cannot ordinarily raise in judicial review complaints about the disciplinary committee which were not advanced on appeal. The court nevertheless considered the grounds on an artificially favourable basis for the claimant.
3. Under Regulation 9.2 of the Chartered Certified Accountants' Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014, the central question was whether proceeding without an adjournment caused material unfairness. The claimant had not sought an adjournment and had previously seen the documents served late. He therefore suffered no material prejudice, and the committee was entitled to proceed. The Wednesbury ground added nothing where the underlying procedural complaint failed.
4. Rule 11 conferred a broad power to admit hearsay, subject to justice and fairness. The committee considered the evidence relevant, recognised that it would not be tested in cross-examination, and could assess its weight. Its failure to give reasons at the time of admission did not create an arguable judicial review error because reasons were given in the final determination and were not shown to be untrue.
5. The telephone hearing was unsatisfactory in a dishonesty case, particularly because credibility and reliability could not readily be assessed remotely. However, the claimant had been asked repeatedly whether he was content to proceed and did not object or seek an adjournment on that basis. The objection was therefore waived, and the proceedings were not shown to be so inimical to justice that the court should intervene.
6. The committee understood the claimant’s essential case that someone else had impersonated him or hijacked his email and LinkedIn profile. Although it misstated one aspect of his position concerning the LinkedIn account, that error was not critical to its conclusion, which rested on the evidence considered as a whole.

The respondent was awarded costs of £17,500.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for judicial review was refused. The judgment records that earlier grounds had been rejected on the papers by Mr David Foxton QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, and that Collins J had directed the revised grounds to be reduced to writing before the renewed hearing.