The ROW between two accountancy bodies has intensified with the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) demanding that the Institute of Incorporated Public Accountants (IIPA) withdraw its bye-laws and regulations.

ACCA contends that the IIPA rule book has been plagiarised from ACCA and is seeking an order in the High Court to "deliver up or destroy all infringing copies of its work", according to an ACCA statement. The ACCA has also warned IIPA members against the use of, or reliance on, ACCA's property.

The IIPA has hit back. "ACCA is a very large English body attacking a small Irish fledging body," the president, Mr Brendan Dennehy, told The Irish Times, adding that his body will be defending the action. ACCA has 60,000 members internationally and 3,500 in Ireland. IIPA, an Irish body, has 307 members, of which 120 are registered auditors. The row has been simmering since April 1996 when Mr Pat Rabbitte, then Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, granted IIPA statutory recognition which allows its members to carry out audits. The Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies (CCAB-I), is challenging this recognition, in a judicial review, as IIPA was not previously recognised by the Companies Acts. The department is defending the action. The timing of the ACCA statement and action is very interesting, Mr Dennehy said. He noted that this review is scheduled for July 15th. Mr Dennehy has vigorously denied ACCA's assertions. The ACCA's bye-laws run to 660 pages, he said, "ours are 28 pages of larger type . . . it [the assertion] is stretching the imagination". Mr Dennehy noted that his institute, in common with other bodies, had gone for standard regulations to cover such things as admissions, membership and subscriptions.

"We modelled ourselves on standards of all the professional bodies. We can't be different." IIPA's regulations for disciplinary actions are the same as the ACCA, the Association of Certified Accountants and the Certified Public Accountants, he said.

The department, he added, has issued guidelines on the last reportable disciplinary offences and "our bye-laws reflect these. These are common to all. No one has a monopoly".

ACCA also noted that it had taken a previous action for plagiarism against IIPA and that "IIPA then admitted that it had copied ACCA's examination syllabus". Mr Dennehy said there was a settlement in relation to a revised syllabus which was never used for exam purposes.

That, he stressed, was a confidential agreement which was registered in the court. "I don't want to break that agreement," said Mr Dennehy.

ACCA has also contended that IIPA had used "large parts of the ACCA syllabus as part of its application for statutory recognition under the Companies Act 1990". Mr Dennehy disagrees; "we did not plagiarise anyone's syllabus in relation to our recognition application".