Hollis, R (on the application of) v The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SALES
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Hollis, an insolvency practitioner and member of ACCA, faced disciplinary charges due to criticisms in a judgment by Henderson J regarding his conduct in promoting a CVA. The ACCA's Disciplinary Committee admitted parts of the judgment as prima facie evidence under regulation 11(2)(d). Mr. Hollis sought judicial review, arguing that the Committee misinterpreted the regulation and that the findings of fact did not qualify as prima facie evidence. The court held that the Committee correctly interpreted the regulation and dismissed the application for judicial review.
Judgment
Mr Justice Sales:
Introduction
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (“ACCA”) at a case management hearing in relation to disciplinary proceedings against the claimant, Mr Hollis, to admit material into evidence in those proceedings to stand as prima facie evidence of misconduct by Mr Hollis.
Mr Hollis is a licensed insolvency practitioner and member of ACCA. He is subject to standards of professional discipline and disciplinary processes administered by ACCA.
Mr Hollis is facing disciplinary charges arising from a judgment of Henderson J, sitting in the Companies Court in July 2010, in which Henderson J revoked a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by the administrators of a company, Sixty UK Ltd (“Sixty”): Mourant & Co. Trustees Ltd v Sixty UK Limited (in Administration) and Peter Hollis and Nicholas O’Reilly (in their capacity as Joint Administrators and Supervisors of Sixty UK Ltd) [2010] EWHC 1890 (Ch) ; [2010] BCC 882 . Mr Hollis is the administrator of Sixty who was principally responsible for promoting the CVA. In his judgment, Henderson J was very critical of the conduct of the administrators of Sixty in promoting the CVA.
The present application for judicial review relates to the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of ACCA issued on 13 December 2013 (after a hearing on 9 December 2013) to admit parts of the judgment of Henderson J in Mourant into evidence under regulation 11(2)(d) of the Chartered Certified Accountants Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”), to stand “as prima facie evidence in the proceedings” against Mr Hollis. The Disciplinary Committee decided to admit these parts of the judgment on the basis that each of them comprised a “finding of fact” by the Judge, within the meaning of that phrase in regulation 11(2)(d).
The hearing of the disciplinary charges against Mr Hollis was originally scheduled to commence in February 2014. It has been postponed until September 2014 to allow for the resolution of an internal appeal by Mr Hollis against the Disciplinary Committee’s decision, which has now been dismissed.
On the application for judicial review, the primary case for Mr Hollis, presented by Mr Davies QC, is based on a short submission of law. Mr Davies contends that the Disciplinary Committee misconstrued regulation 11(2)(d). The relevant parts of the judgment in Mourant