Deloitte and Touche granted leave to appeal

Deloitte & Touche  granted partial leave to appeal, article produced by Mr Jeremy Barnett, head of the regulatory team.

Deloitte & Touche has been granted leave to appeal part of the decision of the independent Disciplinary Tribunal in relation to the MG Rover Group. Leave to appeal has been granted against the six findings in respect of the ‘Project Aircraft’ transaction but refused for the seven findings in respect of ‘Project Platinum’.

This decision was made by Richard de Lacy Q.C. Seven charges related to ‘Project Platinum’ the remaining six related to ‘Project Aircraft’. The basic facts in the case were derived from the report of the Inspection into the affairs of Phoenix Venture Holdings Limited, MG Rover Holdings Limited and 33 other companies, of which Chapters vii and xi were agreed by the parties to be accurate and relevant.

The Scheme ( paragraph 8(6) requires the Judge to give permission to appeal if he is satisfied that there is an arguable case for appeal, in other words, ‘the bar is set high’; an appellant must allege that a decision is perverse, and in relation to penalty the sanction is manifestly unreasonable. The Judge applied a test to the grounds of appeal whether the argument has a real as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success or, in the case of procedural irregularity, whether or not there had been any injustice by reason of the irregularity.

Submissions made include;

  • There is no special class of public interest companies. This was a phrase that was introduced into the proceedings by the parties themselves and the extent of the impact of MGRC as a public interest company [no permission].
  • Failing to properly identify who the clients were for the purposes of a ‘conflict of interest’  [no permission]
  • Failure to properly identify the conflicts of interest [no permission]
  • The reasoning of the tribunal in respect of Project Aircraft in so far as the consequences of the transaction (the availability of a significant part of the proceeds to be applied to the personal benefit of the Phoenix Four) to the conduct of the firm and the Member permission granted].

No opinion was expressed in respect of the issue of sanction, but it was noted that the Appeal Tribunal has power to vary sanction should the appeal succeed.

The full reasons are available on the FRC website by clicking here.

Related people

Jeremy Barnett

Jeremy Barnett

Call: 1980

Featured insights

What happens if you drive without a licence?
What are the penalties for Benefit Fraud?
Stages of Money Laundering explained

Contact Us

Chambers is centrally located within walking distance of the train station, secure car parks and the Courts.

Contact Us

St Pauls Chambers
Park Row House
19-20 Park Row

For out of hours assistance please call the senior clerk on 07854170429.

The switchboard will open from 08:30 until 17:30

Phone: +44 (0)1132 455 866
Email: [email protected]
CJSM: [email protected]

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)