Dean-Willcocks v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board

In the case of Dean-Willcocks v Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board, the applicant, Mr Dean-Willcocks, sought to have a decision of the Disciplinary Board reviewed. The Board had found that Mr Dean-Willcocks had breached professional standards by accepting appointments as an administrator of companies where there were conflicts of interest and inadequate disclosure of relationships. The central legal issue in this case was whether the Board was entitled to consider professional standards in determining whether Mr Dean-Willcocks had failed to carry out his duties as an administrator properly and adequately under s 1292(2)(d)(ii) of the ASIC Act.

The court examined the reasoning of the Board in light of the case of Goodman v Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The Board held that the words “adequately” and “properly” in the statutory provision incorporated notions of judgment, and that the accepted professional standards were relevant to the determination of whether the applicant had carried out his duties. The court agreed with the Board that the accepted professional standards could be found by the Board and that these standards may be set by, or reflected in, published Auditing Standards. The court further held that the applicant’s contention that professional standards could not be taken into account under the section was contrary to the reasoning in Goodman and was therefore rejected.

The court concluded that the Board was entitled to consider professional standards in determining whether Mr Dean-Willcocks had failed to carry out his duties properly and adequately. The court also found that the Board’s decision that the acceptance of the appointment amounted to a breach of duty was correct, as the proper performance of the function of an administrator included the act of accepting the appointment. The court further held that s 448C, which imposes restrictions on consenting to be appointed or acting as an administrator, was not relevant to the present issue.

The application for review was dismissed with costs.