CMW23 v Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board [2024] FCA 407

CMW23 v Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board [2024] FCA 407

The Board had jurisdiction under s 1292(1)(d)(ii) of the Corporations Act to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as review auditor, since that role is required to be undertaken by a registered company auditor under s 324AF(2), and the applicant undisputedly occupied that role at the relevant time. It was then for the Board to subjectively evaluate whether the duties/functions had been carried out adequately and properly; no jurisdictional error was found.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['disciplinary Proceedings Against Auditor' 'jurisdiction of Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board' 'auditing Standards Compliance' 'engagement Quality Control Reviewer' 'registered Company Auditor' 'judicial Review Provisions']
['administrative Law' 'corporations Law'] ['disciplinary Proceedings Against Auditor' 'jurisdiction of Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board' 'auditing Standards Compliance' 'engagement Quality Control Reviewer' 'registered Company Auditor' 'judicial Review Provisions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Board had jurisdiction under s 1292(1)(d)(ii) of the Corporations Act to exercise power over applicant as review auditor' 'Whether duties/functions at issue were those required by Australian law to be carried out or performed by a registered company auditor']

Ratio Decidendi

The Board had jurisdiction under s 1292(1)(d)(ii) of the Corporations Act to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as review auditor, since that role is required to be undertaken by a registered company auditor under s 324AF(2), and the applicant undisputedly occupied that role at the relevant time. It was then for the Board to subjectively evaluate whether the duties/functions had been carried out adequately and properly; no jurisdictional error was found.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application be dismissed.' "Applicant pay first respondent's and second respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be taxed in absence of agreement."]