Dawkins Brown (Appellant) v Public Accountancy Board (Respondent) (Jamaica)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0011

Jurisdiction

Jamaica

Parties

Appellant(s)

Dawkins Brown

Respondent(s)

Public Accountancy Board

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the decision of Public Accountancy Board: (i) to remove him from the Register of Public Accountants and (ii) ordering him to pay costs to the Board in the sum of 1.6 million Jamaican dollars?

Facts

The appellant, Mr Dawkins Brown, is an audit and accounting professional who was previously registered as an accountant under the Public Accountancy Board (“PAB”). He is also a businessman who owns several companies. The respondent, PAB, is a statutory body established under section 3 of the Public Accountancy Act (“PAA”). The PAB’s mandate includes promoting proper professional standards for registered public accountants in Jamaica and it is empowered to pursue disciplinary actions for alleged breaches of the PAA. If a breach is proven, one of the sanctions the PAB may impose is removal from the Register of Public Accountants (“the Register”) and disqualification from practice. Between 28 January and 18 February 2020, the PAB held a disciplinary hearing to consider a complaint received in respect of the appellant. On 18 March, the PAB found the appellant guilty of professional misconduct, deciding: (i) that his name would be removed from the Register, and (ii) that the appellant would be required to pay the sum of $1.6 million (JMD) to the PAB to cover the costs and expenses of and incidental to the enquiry. On 30 March 2020, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (“CA”) seeking to have the orders of the PAB set aside. In addition, the appellant obtained a stay from Justice Straw (a single judge of the CA) for the cost of $1.6 million (JMD), although Justice Straw held that it was too late to stay the removal of the appellant from the Register as the order removing the appellant from the Register had already been gazetted. The CA heard the substantive appeal in mid-February 2021. The CA also heard further submissions on 19 July 2021 and judgment was reserved on that date. The CA’s written judgment was eventually handed down on 14 March 2025. The CA dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Accordingly, the appellant now seeks permission to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

Date of issue

13 February 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top