The TDB decided to appeal against the decision to exclude evidence of the findings made against Mr Malik by the ICAEW. The grounds for the appeal were considered by a Disciplinary Assessor, who allowed the appeal to go ahead. At the hearing on 28 April 2009, the Appeal Tribunal decided that the relevant evidence should have been admitted, on the grounds that the relevant regulation was permissive, not mandatory, and that the TDB's proceedings did not require compliance with strict rules of evidence. Having decided to admit the relevant evidence, the Appeal Tribunal agreed to hear the charges that had been dismissed by the Disciplinary Tribunal.
The Appeal Tribunal found the remaining charges against Mr Malik proved. Those charges involved breaches of Rule 2.1.2 (conducting his practice improperly, negligently and incompetently so as to bring discredit on himself, by signing audit reports in contravention of conditions imposed by the ICAEW and then responding untruthfully to the ICAEW); Rule2.2 (knowingly and recklessly making a statement to the ICAEW which was false or misleading); and Rule 2.1.1 (failure to uphold the professional standards of the CIOT by his failing to abide by a condition imposed by the ICAEW and falsely conveying the impression that he had complied with the condition) in the PRPG.
The Appeal Tribunal decided that the breaches committed by Mr Malik were very serious, in that they called into question his integrity. The Tribunal considered that Mr Malik had given no indication that he recognised the seriousness of his wrongdoing, and the Tribunal had no confidence that he might not behave in a similar way in the future. The Tribunal concluded that the only appropriate sanction for those breaches was that Mr Malik be expelled from membership of the CIOT. The Tribunal ordered that Mr Malik should pay costs of a further £2,875.50, representing the balance of costs sought by the TDB at the original Disciplinary Tribunal hearing.
