Example sentences of "to pay £500 by [noun sg] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Brian Groom FCA of The Shrubbery , Burghfield Bridge , Reading , Berks having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iii ) in that he at Reading between 24 January 1992 and 30 July 1992 failed to satisfy a judgment of the County Court was reprimanded , fined £500 to be paid by 20 January 1993 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 2 | Annachamy Ganesh Aiyer FCA of 9 Cardiff Road , Luton , Beds having been found guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Luton between 8 January 1991 and 21 June 1991 passed clients ' monies through his firm 's office account was reprimanded , fined £750 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 3 | Michael William Beecheno ( ACA ) of 2 Tummons Gardens , South Norwood Hill , London having been found guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that in London between 11 March 1991 and 14 March 1991 he improperly suggested that charges to his employers for temporary staff be increased and the additional sums be paid to him under the guise of consultancy fees was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 4 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(b) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in London between 8 November 1990 and 3 March 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from chartered accountants in respect of a client and having been in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in London between 7 January 1992 and 3 February 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 7 January 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning professional enquiries made by chartered accountants was reprimanded , fined £750 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 5 | ( ACA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Iver , on or about 16 August 1991 , drafted a letter to be signed ‘ ( ACA ) ’ and permitted its use in circumstances which were not consistent with the good reputation of the profession of accountancy was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 6 | was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 7 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Waltham Cross on or about 28 May 1991 drafted a letter of resignation as auditor of a limited company on behalf of his firm in terms not consistent with the good reputation of the profession of accountancy was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 8 | ( FCA ) of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 6.03 in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1989 and 12 March 1991 sent business letters relating to its investment business without bearing the legend ‘ Authorised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to carry on investment business ’ contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.02 and in that the firm at Shipley between 9 September 1988 and 1 October 1989 entered or required its Principal to enter into an association or arrangement with a person which might result in the defendant being constrained or induced to refer or introduce a client to a person who was not an independent intermediary with a view to that person giving investment advice contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.03 and in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1986 and 31 October 1989 failed before recommending or effecting for a client a transaction in units in an authorised unit trust or a recognised collective investment scheme , to take reasonable steps to establish that other more advantageous or suitable policies or units were not available contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.11 and in that the firm at Shipley between 1 November 1989 and 16 October 1991 having given advice to a client which was such that when acted upon it resulted in commission being received by the defendant , failed to notify the said client in writing of the amount and terms of such commission as soon as that information was available , contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.32 was reprimanded , fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 9 | A member of the Institute having been found to have been in breach of Bye-law 76(c) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he between 1 January 1985 and 30 March 1992 engaged in public practice contrary to Bye-law 59 when he did not hold a current practising certificate was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 10 | he in Bromborough between 30 April 1990 and 1 June 1990 whilst his firm were the auditors of a limited company issued an audit report on that company 's accounts for the year ended 30 April 1988 which report did not comply with the revised version of the auditing standard ‘ The Audit Report ’ was reprimanded , fined £l , 000 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |