Deloitte & Touche and Mr Maghsoud Einollahi, granted partial leave to appeal
PN 099
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’.
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’.
A date for the appeal hearing will be announced in due course. The reasons supporting the decision can be found here: 
Decision on Leave to Appeal: Deloitte & Touche and Mr Maghsoud Einollahi (PDF)
Notes to editors:
Decision on Leave to Appeal: Deloitte & Touche and Mr Maghsoud Einollahi (PDF)Notes to editors:
- The FRC is responsible for promoting high quality corporate governance and reporting to foster investment. We set the UK Corporate Governance and Stewardship Codes as well as UK standards for accounting, auditing and actuarial work. We represent UK interests in international standard-setting. We monitor and take action to promote the quality of corporate reporting and auditing. We operate independent disciplinary arrangements for accountants and actuaries; and oversee the regulatory activities of the accountancy and actuarial professional bodies.
- Section 10(2) of The Accountancy Scheme outlines that an appeal can be made only on the following grounds;
- (i) that the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal was perverse or wrong in law; and/or
- (ii) that there was injustice because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal; and/or
- (iii) that significant and relevant new evidence has come to light which was not previously available to the Appellant and could not have become available to him or it on the making of reasonable enquiry; and/or
- (iv) that the sanction imposed pursuant to paragraph 9(8) was manifestly unreasonable.