Accountancy Integrity Under Scrutiny: Awodola's Judicial Review

9 Jan 2025Court Report

High Court dismisses judicial review of disciplinary costs order against accountant Makanju Awodola

Background

The High Court recently dismissed a judicial review application filed by Mr. Makanju Awodola against the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA). The case revolved around a disciplinary costs order following allegations of misconduct related to false financial filings.

The Allegations

Mr. Awodola, a fellow of ACCA, was accused of submitting false financial documents to the Companies Registration Office in Ireland, naming Firm B as auditor when it was not. The allegations spanned from 2014 to 2016 and included claims of dishonesty and a breach of integrity.

Disciplinary Proceedings

The ACCA Disciplinary Committee found several allegations against Mr. Awodola proved, leading to his exclusion from membership. The committee also imposed a costs order of £24,260.50, which Mr. Awodola contested.

Judicial Review Grounds

Mr. Awodola's judicial review challenged the Appeal Committee's refusal to grant permission to appeal the costs order. He argued that the costs order was disproportionate and that his financial circumstances were not adequately considered.

Court's Analysis

The High Court, presided by Vikram Sachdeva KC, found that the ACCA's regulations were correctly applied. The court noted that Mr. Awodola had failed to provide financial information at the appropriate time, which could have influenced the costs decision.

Financial Hardship Argument

Mr. Awodola claimed that the costs order would cause severe financial hardship. However, the court held that the relevant financial information should have been provided at the time of the disciplinary hearing, not during the appeal.

Outcome

The court dismissed the judicial review, upholding the ACCA's decision. It emphasised the importance of integrity in the accountancy profession and the necessity of adhering to procedural rules.

Implications

This case underscores the rigorous standards expected of professional accountants and the procedural diligence required in disciplinary proceedings. It also highlights the challenges of contesting disciplinary costs orders without timely financial disclosures.