Mr David Lindus Forge [FCA] of

Maidstone, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a
formal complaint on 19 June 2023

Type of Member Member

Terms of complaint

Complaint 1 (as amended)

Between 6 December 2015 and 17 December 2018, Mr David Forge FCA, made the comments
listed in Schedules A – L.

Any or all of the comments in Schedules A to L are contrary to ICAEW’s Code of Ethics section
150, Professional Behaviour (effective from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2019).

Schedule A

Comment

In an email dated 6 December 2015 to Mr ‘A’ (copying in Ms ‘B’ and members of

C) he stated:

a. ‘You are in my opinion, the scum of the earth’

Schedule B

Comment

In an email dated 25 December 2015 he stated:

a. ‘….so they have no excuses apart from their negligence and/ or

incompetence’.

054062/MATT
Schedule C

Comment

In an email dated 31 January 2016 to Ms ‘D’ (copying in Mr ‘A’ & ‘C’ residents) he
stated:

a. ‘Dear, oh dear Ms ‘D’, haven’t you got anything better to do like

washing up?’.

b. ‘…so are you doing his dirty work for him or just acknowledging the
source?’.

c. ‘…dear friend Mr ‘A’ (Scum of the Earth)’.

d. ‘…I think you were a lucky, lucky girl – hopefully Ms ‘B’ won’t be’.

e. ‘…I think you owe everyone, including Ms ‘E’, a huge apology. In fact
I think you should do us all a favour and resign’.

Schedule D

Comment

In an email dated 29 January 2016 to Ms ‘D’ (copying in Mr ‘A’ & other ‘C’
residents) he stated:

a. ‘I hope you are well and looking forward to the extra time you will
have following your removal from ‘C’ Board? To be booted off the
Board of a company once is perhaps unfortunate but twice, well that
is careless. To quote the recent words of your fellow director – it is
only a matter of time now’.

b. ‘What a load of wasted effort you have put in to this when you could
have been getting more excited about the location of Mr F’s old
second hand BlackBerry or a few key fobs’.

c. ‘…you have been getting your knickers in a twist for months…’

d. ‘In the infamous amended words of Captain Mainwaring – you stupid

girl…’.

054062/MATT
Schedule E

Comment

In an email dated 14 March 2016 to Mr ‘G’ (copying in Ms ‘D’) he stated:

a. ‘oh dear, oh dear, oh dear Mr ‘G’…’

b. ‘Wrong…Mr ‘G’, wrong??... you have been listening to your friend

and former Director of ‘C’ Mr ‘A’ too much’.

c. ‘You really must start acting and behaving like a professional

managing agent’.

d. ‘so who is WRONG Mr ‘G’ – You or Me? Think about this very
carefully and let me have your considered opinion. I am in absolutely
no doubt that it is YOU who is WRONG here not me and I look
forward to hearing from you with the appropriate grovelling apology
very shortly’.

e. ‘You have clearly gone to the same mickey mouse Accountancy

school as Ms ‘D’.

f. ‘…both are complete and utter nonsense…’.

g. ‘…if this was Mr ‘A’s idiotic idea you are even more of a fool to listen
to him’.

h. ‘…unbelievable you cannot even get your own fees right!’.

054062/MATT
Schedule F

Comment

In an email dated 15 March 2016 to an unknown recipient he stated:

a. ‘…seriously conflicted and her judgement impaired’.

b. ‘Unfortunately Ms ‘D’ is a serial complainant and when she does not

get her own way she throws her toys out…’.

c. ‘I am afraid Ms ‘D’ is not the brightest button in the box and probably
best described as a crank’.

d. ‘Her behaviour is irrational and I am afraid she does not listen to

others who are more knowledgeable than her’.

e. ‘I apologise for any inconvenience Ms ‘D’ may cause’.

Schedule G

Comment

In an email dated 15 March 2016 to Ms ‘D’ he stated:

a. [subject heading] ‘Moaning Mini’

b. ‘…generally making a nuisance of yourself and being a pain’.

c. ‘…I gather they are recruiting at Shop ‘Q’ and Shop ‘R’ so that’s a
possibility’.

054062/MATT
Schedule H

Comment

In an email dated 23 December 2016 to Ms ‘B’ (copying in Ms ‘H’) he stated:

a. ‘…to meet your mouthy sister’.

b. ‘…including your sister Ms ‘I’, have committed offences under the

Fraud Act 2006 and the Theft Act 1968’.

c. ‘I have no doubt you will be kicked out of RICS and IRPM… I expect
you will be re-arrested by the Police and this time charged’.

d. ‘…fine words Ms ‘B’ if only they were true but we both know
otherwise – clearly your children’s lives are not precious’.

e. ‘I believe a good time for the Police to arrest working mothers is

11:00 on a Sunday morning so please listen out for the doorbell. It is
more likely to be Santa this Sunday but next time it could be Mr Plod.
Of course, if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to
worry about’.

Schedule I

Comment

In an email dated 5 January 2018 to members of C he stated:

a. ‘Which one of you bastards provided my confidential e:mail of 22

December 2017 to Mr ‘J’ Big Bollocks?’.

b. ‘…see the changes Mr ‘J’ has made to my e:mail and what a pratt…’.

c. ‘so who was it?’

054062/MATT
Schedule J

Comment

In an email dated 8 March 2018 to Mr ‘A’, Ms ‘B’ & Mr ‘K’, he stated:

a. ‘…I guess the slapper of your sister put you up to this’.

b. ‘Pot and kettle come to mind given the evidence of her affair with Mr
‘L’ [surname removed] and I suspect many others, Mr ‘J’ included?
Does it run in your family?’.

c. ‘…contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about
your sister – the most dishonest person I have ever had the
misfortune to meet?’.
d. ‘…where you sister helps a contractor screw more money out of Mr
‘J’…’

054062/MATT
Schedule K

Comment

In an email dated 13 June 2018 to Mr ‘A’, Ms ‘B’ & Mr ‘K’, he stated:

a. [subject heading] ‘Mr ‘A’s Dirty Tricks’

b. ‘...As a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors I think you are
acting unprofessionally, unethically and maliciously’.

c. ‘All of this because you will not admit you are wrong and accept
responsibility for your own failings…

d. ’The game is finally up Mr ‘A’ and we can ALL finally see you for what your
are – I have previously expressed my view that you are “the Scum of the
Earth” and I stand by that description and I know a number of the others
agree with me’.

e. ‘I consider you to be a sad, nasty, lying and vindictive person who brings the
good name of RICS and your profession into disrepute’.

f. ‘…this is a total figment of your seriously warped and deluded imagination’.

g. ‘…I believe you are mentally deranged and in need of psychiatric help as it
appears to me that there is clearly something wrong here’.

h. ‘Indeed you have advised that your own son has told you to stop this
nonsense 18 months ago; you clearly do not even listen to your own family.
In the meantime I believe you are best ignored by everyone’.

i. ‘I believe there was a fraud at C (under your watch) and other Estates in
2014 and in light of the evidence contained in my Witness Statement this
was, in my opinion, committed by your beloved Ms ‘B’..’.

j. ‘…I have copied in some mutual contacts so that they are also aware of my
views about the state of your mental health’.

k. ‘…sent by Mr ‘A’ (Scum of the Earth)’.

054062/MATT
Schedule L

Comment

In an email dated 17 December 2018 to Mr ‘A’ he stated:

a. ‘Happy birthday Mr ‘J’, you old git, I hope you have a rotten day..’.

b. ‘…you are a dead man walking…’.

c. ‘You are an embarrassment to your profession and a total disgrace’.

Mr David Forge is liable to disciplinary action under 4.1(a) in respect of Complaint 1.

Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1(a) (effective from 24 July 2013 to 14 October 2018) states a
member is liable to disciplinary action:

‘if in the course of carrying out professional work or otherwise he has committed any act
or default likely to bring discredit on himself, ICAEW or the profession of accountancy.’

Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective from 15 October 2018 to 14 October 2019) states that a
members is liable to disciplinary action:

‘if he has committed misconduct; by committing any act or default, whether in the
course of carrying out professional work or otherwise, likely to bring discredit on
himself, ICAEW or the profession of accountancy, or so as to fall significantly short
of the standards reasonably expected of a member. . .’’

054062/MATT
Hearing date(s)

Previous hearing dates Case Management Hearing on 2 May 2023

Form of hearing Final hearing

Findings on complaint Complaint found proved

Order Exclusion from membership

Costs of £15,295

Procedural matters and findings:

Parties and representation The Investigation Committee (IC) was represented

by Ms Jessica Sutherland-Mack
Mr Forge was not present and was not represented

Hearing in public or private The hearing was in public

Decision on service The Panel was satisfied that service was in

accordance with regulations 3 and 26 of the
Tribunal Committee Regulations

Documents considered by the Panel The Panel considered the documents contained in
the Investigation Committee’s bundle and the
additional documents provided to it

Proceeding in absence

1. At the Case Management Hearing (‘CMH’) on 2 May 2023, the Chair was satisfied that
service of the IC’s papers had been effected in accordance with Regulation 3 of the
Disciplinary Committee Regulations (‘DCR’) (as they were then known). Mr Forge had not
filed a Respondent's Statement and nor did he attend the CMH. The CMH Chair gave
directions and listed the case for a final hearing on 19 June 2023.

2. Notice of the final hearing was sent by email to Mr Forge on 3 May 2023 to his registered
email address.

054062/MATT
3. On 12 June 2023, the IC’s case presenter Ms Sutherland-Mack emailed Mr Forge attaching
a copy of the costs schedule for the final hearing. Mr Forge replied on 15 June 2023 saying:

‘What Disciplinary Hearing next week?

I am currently away on a cruise and only have wifi access when ashore. Back home
next week. I cannot read your attachment on my mobile phone so that will wait.

My position remains as per my previous emails which have been ignored. I have
completed your Financial Questionnaire and without agreement on costs I will not
be burdening you with lever arch files of relevant evidence to this case and the
unethical and fraudulent conduct of the complainants in this tit for tat case. Without
this you are making judgements without foundation.’

4. Ms Sutherland-Mack submitted to the Tribunal that, despite what Mr Forge said in this
email, he must have been aware of the hearing because the notice of it was sent to the
same email address.

5. There was further correspondence between Ms Sutherland-Mack and Mr Forge between 15

and 18 June 2023. In her email of 15 June 2023 Ms Sutherland-Mack pointed out that all
communications with Mr Forge had been to the same email address. She asked him to
confirm whether he intended to attend the hearing or whether he was content for it to
proceed in his absence.

6. Mr Forge replied forty minutes later saying:

‘The Insitute [sic] has ignored my representations and yes I have better things to do
than waste my time on this nonsense. . .

I tendered my resignation before I had any knowledge of this so you have wasted
your members money but so be it. . . I resigned to save £50 a year so I have
achieved my objective.

Thank you and goodbye!!’

054062/MATT
7. Ms Sutherland-Mack replied the following day, pointing out that a member cannot
effectively resign whilst there is an extant disciplinary complaint. She concluded her email
by again asking Mr Forge whether he had any objections to the Tribunal proceeding in his
absence. Mr Forge replied on 18 June 2023 with a two-page email including the following:

‘You are not listening and and [sic] you and your colleagues have IGNORED my
representations.

After I had resigned and you brought the existence of the complaint to my attention I
provided to you 2 no cost solutions for dealing with this matter which the Institute
IGNORED. Given that I retired in 2007 that was very foolish.

Instead you or your colleagues decided to "investigate" the complaints. What on

earth did you think you were seeking to achieve? I had already been retired for 15
years at that stage!

...

For reasons already explained I will only provide the evidence if I am indemnified
against the costs. The decision is yours.’

8. The Tribunal considered the following provisions:

DCR 26, which states: ‘The directions from the case management hearing and
notice of the date, time and location of the final hearing shall be served on the
parties by the PCD Committee Secretary within 7 days of the case management
hearing.’

DCR 30, which states: ‘If the respondent/respondent firm has consented to service
by email then any notice or document may be served on the email address which
they have consented to use.

9. The Tribunal was satisfied that service had been effected in accordance with DCR 26 and
30. The notice of this hearing had been sent within seven days of the CMH to an email
address Mr Forge had used in communications with ICAEW. The Tribunal therefore went
on to consider, in accordance with DCR 39, whether it should proceed in Mr Forge’s
absence.

054062/MATT
10. The Tribunal noted Mr Forge had not requested an adjournment nor had he sought more
time to prepare his response to the complaints. It noted that, in its email to Mr Forge on 15
June 2023, ICAEW invited him to say whether he had any objections to the hearing
proceeding in his absence. Although he replied in a lengthy email, he did not indicate that
he had any such objection. His position appears to be that he will only co-operate if he was
indemnified by ICAEW in respect of costs. That was clearly an untenable position. Of
relevance, the Tribunal also noted that Mr Forge’s position was that he wished to resign his
membership of, and therefore presumably have nothing more to do with, ICAEW.

11. In light of those factors, the Tribunal was satisfied that no useful purpose would be served
in adjourning the hearing. It doubted that Mr Forge would attend on a future occasion.it was
in the interests of the ICAEW and probably of Mr Forge, to progress in hearing and
determining this matter.

12. The Tribunal was therefore satisfied it was appropriate to proceed in Mr Forge’s absence.

Application to amend

13. Ms Sutherland-Mack applied to amend Schedule C to the Complaint. She submitted that
there was a typographical error in paragraph (d). As drafted it read:

‘…I think you were a lucky, lucky firm – hopefully Ms ‘B’ won’t be’.

14. Ms Sutherland-Mack pointed out that the email in question, a copy of which was included in
the IC’s bundle, used the word ‘girl’ rather than ‘firm’. She therefore applied to substitute the
word ‘girl’ for ‘firm’. She submitted that there would be no prejudice to Mr Forge as he
would be aware from the documents in the bundle what was being alleged.

15. The Tribunal was satisfied that the application was appropriate and that there would be no
injustice caused by making this amendment. It therefore allowed the application.

The Investigation Committee’s case

16. Mr Forge has been a member of the ICAEW since 1981. He has not held an ICAEW
practising certificate since 2008.

054062/MATT
17. Mr Forge owns a property at ‘C’. The ‘C’ development, which comprises 140 houses and
272 flats, is managed by Firm ‘M’. Mr Forge, in common with other owners, is a member of
Firm ‘M’. Between 2008 and 2015, Firm ‘N’ were the managing agents for ‘C’ appointed by
Firm ‘M’.

18. The complaint relates to a dispute that arose between Mr Forge and Ms ‘B’, who was
employed by Firm ‘N’ as Head of Block Management, and Mr ‘A’, who was a director of
Firm ‘M’ and also a ‘C’ lessee. Both Ms ‘B’ and Mr ‘A’ are chartered surveyors. In around
December 2014 Ms ‘B’ left the employment of Firm ‘N’ and subsequently went to work for
Mr ‘A’s firm, Firm ‘O’. A dispute arose between Ms ‘E’, director of Firm ‘N’ and a friend of Mr
Forge, and Ms ‘B’ and Mr ‘A’.

19. Mr Forge alleged that Ms ‘B’ had committed fraud in relation to Firm ‘M’ funds. He made a
complaint to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors about Ms ‘B’ and Mr ‘A’. Between
December 2015 and December 2018 Mr Forge sent emails to Mr ‘A’, Ms ‘B’, members of
Firm ‘M’ and others expressing his views and making comments relating to the
management of ‘C’.

20. The ICs case was that certain comments made in those emails were offensive and contrary
to the principle of professional behaviour set out in ICAEW’s Code of Ethics. The comments
relied on by the IC are set out in Schedules A to L to the complaint. The principle of
professional behaviour, effective from 2011 to 2019, in section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics
states:

‘The principle of professional behaviour imposes an obligation on all professional

accountants to comply with relevant laws and regulations and avoid any action that
the professional accountant knows or should know may discredit the profession.
This includes actions that a reasonable and informed third party, weighing all the
specific facts and circumstances available to the professional accountant at that
time, would be likely to conclude adversely affects the good reputation of the
profession.’

21. The IC submitted that this duty applies to an accountant in their private as well as
professional life, relying on Roylance v GMC [2000] AC 311.

22. The IC’s case was that Mr Forge’s behaviour was discreditable and therefore in breach of
Disciplinary Bye-law (‘DBL’) 4.1(a).

054062/MATT
23. The IC sent an email to Mr Forge on 20 April 2021 in which it set out the comments which
appear in the Schedules to the Complaint. The letter invited Mr Forge to confirm whether he
agreed that he had made these comments and to give his explanation for them. The IC
relied on the fact that, although Mr Forge responded to this correspondence on 10 July
2021, he did not dispute having made the comments.

Mr Forge’s case

24. Mr Forge did not provide any formal response to the complaint.

25. In correspondence with ICAEW, he said that he considered that the comments he made
were justified, appropriate and proportionate in response to the complainants’ actions. He
said that the complainants were the aggressors and he was seeking to defend a friend
against what he considered to be unscrupulous and unethical actions to destroy her and
her business. He said:

‘You may not consider the language appropriate but that is because you have not
understood the dispute but you will have a feeling for this from the correspondence
you have received.’

26. Mr Forge attempted to resign his membership of ICAEW but resignations are not accepted
whilst there is an ongoing disciplinary investigation.

Conclusions and reasons for decision

Decision on complaint

27. The Tribunal considered the documents before it, the submissions of Ms Sutherland-Mack
on behalf of the IC and the advice of the Legal Assessor, which it accepted. The Tribunal
bore in mind that the burden of proof is on the IC and the standard of proof is on the
balance of probabilities.

28. The Tribunal was satisfied that the emails listed in Schedules A to L came from Mr Forge. It
noted that, at no stage, had Mr Forge disputed sending the emails in question, despite
having had a number of opportunities to do so. Indeed, his position was the comments he
made were justified and appropriate. The Committee also noted that the email address
these emails were sent from was the same email address Mr Forge used to communicate
with ICAEW, as recently as yesterday. Therefore, it found on the balance of probabilities
that, as a matter of fact, Mr Forge had sent the emails in question.

054062/MATT
29. The Tribunal then considered whether the comments made as set out in Schedules A to L
amounted to a breach of section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics. The Tribunal considered, in
particular, whether making the comments brought discredit on the profession. The Tribunal
bore in mind that the dictionary definition of discreditable is shameful or disgraceful. The
Tribunal gave separate consideration to each of the emails in the Schedules to the
complaint.

30. Schedule A referred to an email Mr Forge sent to Mr ‘A’ in December 2015 in which he said
‘You are in my opinion, the scum of the earth.’ The Tribunal took into account that the email
was not sent in the context of a professional engagement or a professional setting.
However, it was sent in a formal context in that it related to the management of the ‘C’
development. It also noted that the email, though addressed to Mr ‘A’, was copied to 11
other recipients.

31. The Tribunal was satisfied that using the phrase ‘scum of the earth’ was completely
unacceptable and amounted to discreditable conduct. It was therefore a breach of section
150.1 of the Code of Ethics.

32. Schedule B concerned an email sent by Mr Forge to members of ‘C’ calling for a General
Meeting. The full sentence in question reads:

‘The Directors and Firm ‘P’ will have had 3 weeks to organise the General Meeting
so they have no excuses apart from their negligence and/or incompetence’.

33. This did not, in the Tribunal’s, view reach the threshold for discreditable behaviour.
Negligence and incompetence do arise at times, and it can be appropriate to raise these.

34. The Tribunal considered that the comments in Mr Forge’s email of 31 January 2016 to Ms
‘D’, set out in Schedule C, included sexist, belittling and unprofessional language. This
included ‘Dear, oh dear Ms ‘D’, haven’t you got anything better to do like washing up?’ and
‘…I think you were a lucky, lucky girl’. In this email Mr Forge again used the phrase ‘Scum
of the Earth’ which, as stated above, the Tribunal considered completely unacceptable. The
Tribunal noted that this email was copied to four recipients, one of whom was clearly
outside the immediate caucus of the dispute. The Tribunal found this email was a breach of
section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics.

054062/MATT
35. Schedule D also included sexist language (‘you stupid girl’ and ‘knickers in a twist’). The
overall tone of the email, which again was addressed to Ms ‘D’, was aggressive and
offensive. It was significant, in the Tribunal's view, that this email and the one referred to in
Schedule C were sent within a short time of each other. The Tribunal found this email was
a breach of section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics.

36. The Tribunal found the comments in Schedule E, in the email of 14 March 2016 to Mr ‘G’,
amounted to a breach of section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics. It noted in particular the
references to ‘the same mickey mouse Accountancy School as Ms ‘D’ and ‘if this was Mr
‘A’s idiotic idea you are even more of a fool to listen to him’. The Tribunal’s view was that,
quite irrespective of the underlying merits or otherwise of the dispute Mr Forge was
embroiled in, this was not an appropriate or professional way to express a point of view.

37. The email of 15 March 2016 referred to in Schedule F appeared from its content to a be an
email to ICAEW. The Tribunal noted that the recipient’s email address was blank, and Ms
Sutherland-Mack told the Tribunal that there was no record of ICAEW having received it.
However, a copy of this email was clearly sent to Ms ‘D’ with the email referred to in
Schedule G, in which Mr Forge said, ‘I thought I might pre-empt a complaint from you so I
have sent the e:mail below just in case I should hear further’. Therefore, the Tribunal was
satisfied that, whether or not the email referred to in Schedule F was sent to ICAEW, a
copy of it was sent to Ms ‘D’. This was relevant because the comments included in this
email were disparaging of Ms ‘D’. They included ‘Unfortunately Ms ‘D’ is a serial
complainant’, ‘I am afraid Ms ‘D’ is not the brightest button in the box and probably best
described as a crank’ and ‘Her behaviour is irrational’. The Tribunal was satisfied that this
email was, and was intended to be, offensive and it was in breach of section 150.1 of the
Code of Ethics.

38. Similarly, the tone of the email referred to in Schedule G was also offensive to Ms ‘D’. It
included ‘generally making a nuisance of yourself and being a pain’ and ‘I gather they are
recruiting at Shop ‘Q’ and Shop ‘R’ so that’s a possibility’. The comments were, in the
Tribunal’s view, completely unnecessary, offensive and inappropriate and amounted to a
breach of section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics.

054062/MATT
39. The Tribunal considered that the comments set out in Schedule H, which was an email sent
two days before Christmas to Ms ‘B’, were the worst example of Mr Forge’s offensive
behaviour. It included allegations of criminal behaviour, threats regarding police arrest and
highly disparaging remarks relating to Ms ‘B’s children and her approach to parenting. The
Tribunal concluded that any recipient would likely find an email of this nature threatening
and intimidating. The fact that Ms ‘B’ contacted the police following receipt of this email
demonstrated the significant distress to which it had put her.

40. The Tribunal also noted both the timing of email and the fact that Mr Forge referred in it to
his professional status and career. This directly engaged the reputation of the profession.
The Tribunal found this was a very nasty email and a clear breach of section 150.1 of the
Code of Ethics.

41. The language used by Mr Forge in his email of 5 January 2018, referred to in Schedule I,
was unjustified and offensive. It included the word ‘bastards’ and called someone ‘Mr ‘J’ Big
Bollocks’. The Tribunal found this amounted to a breach of section 150.1 of the Code of
Ethics.

42. Similarly, the language in Mr Forge’s email of 8 March 2018 (Schedule J), was
unnecessarily rude and offensive. Mr Forge used the phrases ‘slapper of a sister’ and ‘the
most dishonest person I have had misfortune to meet’. Again, whatever the rights and
wrongs of the underlying dispute, there was no excuse for language of this nature. The
Tribunal found this was a breach of section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics.

43. The email referred to in Schedule K once again employed the highly offensive phrase
‘scum of the earth’. Mr Forge also in this email used the phrases ‘your seriously warped
and deluded imagination’ and ‘I believe you are mentally deranged and in need of
psychiatric help’. The use of this completely inappropriate and offensive language was
compounded by the fact this email was sent to 28 recipients. The Tribunal found this was a
breach of section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics.

44. Schedule L referred to a text sent to Mr ‘A’ which was then repeated in an email to Mr ‘A’s
brother. In it, Mr Forge said ‘Happy birthday Mr ‘J’, you old git, I hope you have a rotten
day’, ‘you are a dead man walking’ and ‘You are an embarrassment to your profession and
a total disgrace’. Of significance, this was sent at two minutes past midnight. It was clear to
the Tribunal that the objective was to cause maximum distress and annoyance to Mr ‘A’.
This was clearly inappropriate behaviour for an accountant to engage in. The Tribunal
found this was a breach of section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics.

054062/MATT
45. Having found that the emails referred to in Schedule A and Schedules C to L amounted to a
breach of the principle of professional behaviour in section 150.1 of the Code of Ethics, the
Tribunal went on to consider whether Mr Forge was liable to disciplinary action under DBL
4.1(a).

46. The Tribunal noted that the wording of this Bye-law changed in 2018, but that at all relevant
times it was engaged by behaviour which was likely to bring discredit to the member, the
Institute or the profession of accountancy. The Tribunal was in no doubt that the conduct in
question was discreditable, and accordingly DBL 4.1(a) was engaged.

47. The Tribunal therefore found the complaint proved in its entirety save in respect of the
comments in Schedule B.

Matters relevant to sanction

48. There were no previous disciplinary matters recorded against Mr Forge.

49. The Tribunal had regard to ICAEW’s Guidance on Sanctions (‘GOS’). It bore in mind that
the purpose of sanctions is not to punish a member, albeit they might have that effect, but
to maintain the reputation of the profession, uphold proper standards, deter misconduct and
protect the public.

50. The Tribunal considered this conduct fell into category 9(i) which covers an aggressive
course of conduct and/or the use of obscene and grossly offensive language or similar. The
starting point for this category is a severe reprimand and a category D fine (£5,000). The
GOS also suggests that remedial training should be considered, but that was clearly
inappropriate in this case given that Mr Forge is no longer practising.

51. The Tribunal was of the view that the following were aggravating factors.

• The comments included language which was sexist i.e. discriminatory, grossly
offensive and was of a threatening nature, which caused offence and hurt to a
number of people. In one instance, a recipient was so concerned by the contents
(which suggested the Police would be arresting her), and by the email being hand
delivered by post to her home address, that she contacted the Police.

• The conduct continued over a significant period of time and offensive comments
were made repeatedly I.e. there was a persistent pattern of unprofessional conduct.

• Mr Forge made direct reference to his professional status

054062/MATT
 • Mr Forge wrote a disparaging email addressed to the ICAEW about one recipient
and sent it to her in a clear attempt to intimidate her

• Mr Forge failed to meaningfully co-operate with ICAEW. At various times he

indicated he had additional evidence and contextual information but, despite being
invited by the ICAEW to provide it on more than one occasion, he did not.

• Mr Forge demonstrated a complete lack of insight or remorse.

52. Whilst it does not diminish the seriousness of the conduct, the Tribunal accepted that the
background to the comments was a clearly fraught dispute relating to the management of
the ‘C’ development. In mitigation, the Tribunal noted that during the Investigation, Mr
Forge told the ICAEW that he has had to deal with a number of [PRIVATE]. That apart, the
Tribunal found no mitigating factors.

53. In light of the above, the Tribunal was satisfied that no sanction lower than the starting point
identified in the GOS would be appropriate. The issue for the Tribunal was whether the
aggravating factors justified a more severe sanction. The Tribunal was satisfied they did.
The Tribunal considered that, in light in particular of the prolonged pattern of egregious
conduct, discriminatory comments, his lack of insight and the risk of repetition, Mr Forge’s
conduct was incompatible with his continued membership of a professional body.

54. The Tribunal was satisfied that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was to exclude
Mr Forge from membership.

55. The IC applied for costs in the sum of £15,290. The application was supported by a
schedule giving a detailed breakdown of costs. The Tribunal noted that a significant amount
of the work done on preparation of the case had been excluded from the schedule. The
Tribunal was satisfied that the costs claimed were reasonable and had been properly
incurred. The Tribunal took into account the principle that a member should bear the costs
they have caused as a result of disciplinary action that has to be taken against them.

56. The Tribunal took into account the financial circumstances information form supplied by Mr
Forge. The Tribunal did not consider that this information justified reducing the amount of
costs or exercising its power under DBL 33.2 to make an order for instalments, though Mr
Forge is free to approach ICAEW to seek to agree time for payment if he wishes.

054062/MATT
Order

57. The Tribunal made the following order:

1. Mr Forge is excluded from membership.

2. Mr Forge shall pay costs to ICAEW of £15,290.

58. Under Disciplinary Bye-law 25.1, the sanction of exclusion comes into effect 28 days after
service of these written reasons on Mr Forge. Under Disciplinary Bye-law 33.2 the order for
costs shall be paid within 35 days of the date on which these written reasons are served on
Mr Forge.

Decision on publicity

59. The Tribunal directed that a record of this decision shall be published and Mr Forge shall be
named in that record.

Chair Mr Andrew Harvey

Accountant Member Ms Lydia Ebdon
Non Accountant Member Ms Isobel Leaviss

Legal Assessor Mr Andrew Granville Stafford

054062/MATT