The Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board has finally published the full judgment of the Mayflower public tribunal.

The Mayflower tribunal – in which the AIDB brought complaints against company's FD David Donnelly and PricewaterhouseCoopers for falling short of accounting standards – was the first public tribunal held by the industry disciplinary board.

The 247-page judgement, by an independent panel which made findings on the case, slammed the expert evidence of industry author Emile Woolf.

The panel stated in its report that the best interests of the case were not served by the AIDB calling Woolf as their expert 'independent expert' since he had been closely involved in the investigation and advised the AIDB to separate investigative and expert roles in future cases.

The panel also took opportunity in their report to criticise the fact that Woolf had not been a finance director, and therefore his opinion of what a reasonably competent FD would do in certain circumstances was of limited assistance during the case.

Woolf was also criticised for presuming against the directors of Mayflower and ignorance which neither he, nor AIDB executive counsel Cameron Scott, investigated.

The panel further noted the plain errors in Woolf's report, inaccuracies in his verbal evidence and his failure to answer questions until directed by the panel chairman, to do so.

The panel, however, accepted the evidence of other witnesses, provided by the PwC.

But the firm's case was not helped by the misuse of a company secretary, of terms such as 'assurances' and 'undertakings'.

However, the panel considered the firm's witnesses to be 'honest'.

Further reading:

Tories demand Mayflower judgment

AIDB criticised after defeat at public tribunal

PwC cleared as FRC transparency questioned