A Longford accountant, Mr John H Murphy, has been reprimanded and fined £5,000 (€6,349) by an Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (ICAI) disciplinary tribunal which upheld two complaints against him.

Mr Murphy, who was making his fifth appearance before an ICAI disciplinary committee since 1996, contested neither of the two complaints, both of which related to failure or refusal to deal with business correspondence in an effective or timely manner.

The ICAI's complaints committee had been seeking Mr Murphy's expulsion from the institute on this occasion, arguing that previous sanctions, which had included a six-month suspension, had been ineffective.

In the two cases before the tribunal, it was found Mr Murphy had failed to respond to requests for information from another Longford-based accountancy firm, Lyons Keenan Kilemade, to which two of Mr Murphy's clients had moved their business.

This was in contravention of the ICAI's ethical guide, which dictates that outgoing advisers must respond to their successors when information is requested. It was also found that Mr Murphy had failed to respond to ICAI secretariat inquiries in relation to the same cases.

In one of the matters, the tribunal heard Mr Murphy's poor correspondence had caused his former client financial damage in the form of a Revenue penalty.

It was acknowledged, however, that Mr Murphy had himself received no financial benefit as a direct result of his conduct in the two cases under consideration.

Mr Murphy, represented by solicitors, Reddy Charlton McKnight, submitted that the period to which the complaints related had been a time of great stress in his personal life.

His wife had been seriously ill and his father, who runs a separate accountancy practice in Longford, had also suffered from poor health.

The two practices had strong links, the tribunal heard, leading to a situation where Mr Murphy was increasingly taking on aspects of his father's workload and neglecting his correspondence as a consequence.

Both Mr Murphy and the tribunal emphasised, however, that the complaints in hand had no relation to the practice of Mr Murphy's father, who had an unblemished professional record.

In imposing the £5,000 penalty, Tribunal chairman, Mr Dominic Dowling, said that Mr Murphy's undertaking to abide by the recommendations of the practice advisory service was a "very serious matter", the breach of which would generate "the gravest consequences".