如果你是湖南省考生，教你几招，轻松让你在ACCA考试中保持专注!

正确答案：
(c) Social and environmental responsibilities
Performance indicators
■ Absolute ($) and relative (%) level of investment in sports sponsorship, and funding to the Shire Ward.
■ Increasing number of championship events and participating schools/students as compared with prior year.
■ Number of medals/trophies sponsored at events and/or number awarded to Shire sponsored schools/students.
■ Number of patients treated (successfully) a week/month. Average bed occupancy (daily/weekly/monthly and cumulative
to date).
■ Staffing levels (e.g. of volunteers for sports events, Shire Ward staff and the company):
? ratio of starters to leavers/staff turnover;
? absenteeism (average number of days per person per annum).
1 Withdrawal of the new licence would not create a going concern issue.
2 May also be described as ‘exploration and evaluation’ costs or ‘discovery and assessment’.
■ Number of:
– breaches of health and safety regulations and environmental regulations;
– oil spills;
– accidents and employee fatalities;
– insurance claims.
Evidence
Tutorial note: As there is a wide range of performance indicators that candidates could suggest, there is always a wide range
of possible sources of audit evidence. As the same evidence may contribute to providing assurance on more than one
measure they are not tabulated here, to avoid duplication. However, candidates may justifiably adopt a tabular layout. Also
note, that where measures may be expressed as evidence (e.g. trophies awarded) marks should be awarded only once.
■ Actual level of investment ($) compared with budget and budget compared with prior period.
Tutorial note: Would expect actual to be at least greater than prior year if performance in these areas (health and
safety) has improved.
■ Physical evidence of favourable increases on prior year, for example:
? medals/cups sponsored;
? number of beds available.
■ Increase in favourable press coverage/reports of sponsored events. (Decrease in adverse press about
accidents/fatalities.)
■ Independent surveys (e.g. by marine conservation organisations, welfare groups, etc) comparing Shire favourably with
other oil producers.
■ A reduction in fines paid compared with budget (and prior year).
■ Reduction in legal fees and claims being settled as evidenced by fee notes and correspondence files.
■ Amounts settled on insurance claims and level of insurance cover as compared with prior period.

正确答案：
6 Overview:
The need for clear and concise communication and the consequences of poor communication must be understood by a profession
which exists to provide information to others. Poor communication leads to ineffective control, poor co-ordination and management
failure.
Part (a):
Good communication ensures that individuals know what is expected of them. Co-ordination takes place within the organisation
and there is control of the organisation’s plans, procedures and staff. Instructions of management need to be clearly understood in
assisting group and team cohesiveness and reducing stress from misunderstood instructions. Bias, distortion and omission is
removed with clear communication, as is secrecy, innuendo and rumour. Good communication ensures that the right information
is received by the correct person and thus acted upon, reducing conflict within and between different parts of the organisation.

正确答案：

The Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986 was introduced to control individuals who persistently abused the various privileges that accompany incorporation, most particularly the privilege of limited liability. The Act applies to more than just directors and the court may make an order preventing any person (without leave of the court) from being:
(i) a director of a company;
(ii) a liquidator or administrator of a company;
(iii) a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or
(iv) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
The CDDA 1986 identifies three distinct categories of conduct, which may, and in some circumstances must, lead the court to disqualify certain persons from being involved in the management of companies.
(a) General misconduct in connection with companies
This first category involves the following:
(i) A conviction for an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company or with the receivership or management of a company’s property (s.2 of the CDDA 1986). The maximum period for disqualification under s.2 is five years where the order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and 15 years in any other case.

(ii) Persistent breaches of companies legislation in relation to provisions which require any return, account or other document to be filed with, or notice of any matter to be given to, the registrar (s.3 of the CDDA 1986). Section 3 provides that a person is conclusively proved to be persistently in default where it is shown that, in the five years ending with the date of the application, he has been adjudged guilty of three or more defaults (s.3(2) of the CDDA 1986). This is without prejudice to proof of persistent default in any other manner. The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.
(iii) Fraud in connection with winding up (s.4 of the CDDA 1986). A court may make a disqualification order if, in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that a person:
(1) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable under s.993 of the CA 2006, that is, that he has knowingly been a party to the carrying on of the business of the company either with the intention of defrauding the company’s creditors or any other person or for any other fraudulent purpose; or
(2) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company or receiver or manager of the property of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or manager (s.4(1)(b) of the CDDA 1986).
The maximum period of disqualification under this category is 15 years.(b) Disqualification for unfitness
The second category covers:
(i) disqualification of directors of companies which have become insolvent, who are found by the court to be unfit to be directors (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Under s. 6, the minimum period of disqualification is two years, up to a maximum of 15 years;
(ii) disqualification after investigation of a company under Pt XIV of the CA 1985 (it should be noted that this part of the previous Act still sets out the procedures for company investigations) (s.8 of the CDDA 1986). Once again, the maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.
Schedule 1 to the CDDA 1986 sets out certain particulars to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether a person’s conduct as a director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. In addition, the courts have given indications as to what sort of behaviour will render a person liable to be considered unfit to act as a company director. Thus, in Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd (1988), it was stated that:
‘Ordinary commercial misjudgment is in itself not sufficient to justify disqualification. In the normal case, the conduct complained of must display a lack of commercial probity, although . . . in an extreme case of gross negligence or total incompetence, disqualification could be appropriate.’

(c) Other cases for disqualification
This third category relates to:
(i) participation in fraudulent or wrongful trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986 (s.10 of the CDDA 1986);
(ii) undischarged bankrupts acting as directors (s.11 of the CDDA 1986); and
(iii) failure to pay under a county court administration order (s.12 of the CDDA 1986).
For the purposes of most of the CDDA 1986, the court has discretion to make a disqualification order. Where, however, a person has been found to be an unfit director of an insolvent company, the court has a duty to make a disqualification order (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Anyone who acts in contravention of a disqualification order is liable:
(i) to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine, on conviction on indictment; or
(ii) to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, on conviction summarily (s.13 of the CDDA 1986).