PracticeAuditRegulator bites back in row over who pays disciplinary costs

Regulator bites back in row over who pays disciplinary costs

There may have been an avalanche of criticism for proposed changes to disciplinary rules for accountants, but the regulator has refused to buckle, mounting a vigorous defence of the tabled measures

The changes would extend disciplinary action to those who breach accountancy
‘guidance’ and restrict the paying of costs to defendants found not guilty who
could demonstrate ‘misfeasance’ on the part of the Accountancy and Actuarial
Discipline Board.

On costs the Big Four claim a breach of ‘natural justice’, and say the
guidance change would turn audits into ‘box ticking’ exercises. But the
Financial Reporting Council, the umbrella body supervising the AADB, has
responded stoutly.

‘There is a public interest in a regulator being able to bring cases which
need to be brought, and that the regulator not fear ruinous costs if he loses.
That is why the Court of Appeal has made it clear that the normal concept of
‘loser pays’ does not apply in regulatory cases,’ says the FRC.

‘We have put in place procedures to make sure that a defendant who can’t
afford to pay his legal support will have his expenses covered.

‘If we behave badly we should be punished, that’s why we’re saying
misfeasance. But if we don’t we should not be forced to hold back in pursuing
public-interest cases
out of fear of ruinous costs.’

On box ticking, the FRC adds: ‘If accountants choose to be very rigid in
their behaviour as a result of this then that’s something standard-setters will
have to take into account.’

The key issue is this: some defendants ­ those from the Big Four ­ are
willing to spend extremely large sums in fighting charges brought by the
regulator. Sums that could cripple the watchdog given the FRC manages with just
£11m a year for all its constituent bodies.

The fact that the FRC is quoting a Court of Appeal ruling means it has taken
advice and feels confident of its position. Indeed the comment could be seen as
a coded challenge: take us on in court if you dare. There’s also a possibility
that the regulator could argue that it has something akin to a contractual
relationship with accountants through their professional bodies, something the c
ourts could be reluctant to challenge.

Both will give the firms food for thought when considering whether they want
to go beyond just making a lot of noise.

Related Articles

Is predictive analytics the end of the annual audit?

Audit Is predictive analytics the end of the annual audit?

3d Martin Herron, MHA MacIntyre Hudson
Auditors ‘in the dock’ over Carillion as report calls for Big Four break-up

Audit Auditors ‘in the dock’ over Carillion as report calls for Big Four break-up

1w Emma Smith, Managing Editor
PCAOB sanctions former Deloitte Turkey CEOs over altered documents

Audit PCAOB sanctions former Deloitte Turkey CEOs over altered documents

2w Alia Shoaib, Reporter
KPMG South Africa to review past audit work amid fresh scandal

Audit KPMG South Africa to review past audit work amid fresh scandal

1m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
FRC introduces £10m sanctions for Big Four firms

Audit FRC introduces £10m sanctions for Big Four firms

1m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Ukraine’s PrivatBank files $3bn claim against PwC

Audit Ukraine’s PrivatBank files $3bn claim against PwC

2m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Grant Thornton to exit FTSE 350 audit market, citing Big Four dominance

Audit Grant Thornton to exit FTSE 350 audit market, citing Big Four dominance

2m Alia Shoaib, Reporter
Big Four dominate FTSE 250 audit market in Q1 rankings

Audit Big Four dominate FTSE 250 audit market in Q1 rankings

3m Alia Shoaib, Reporter