Sunita Somvanshi
A former senior executive at KPMG Australia has launched legal action against the firm in the NSW Supreme Court after being expelled from the partnership. The case is pulling back the curtain on how one of the country’s largest professional services firms handles internal investigations, partner exits, and regulatory pressure simultaneously.
Eileen Hoggett was the Chief Operating Officer of KPMG Australia. She stepped down from the COO role in early June 2026 while remaining as an audit partner, before being expelled from the partnership weeks later. On June 23, KPMG announced it was making leadership changes and conducting a governance overhaul — including appointing its first independent chair and adding independent directors to its board. That same announcement confirmed that Hoggett and fellow audit partner Paul Rogers were leaving the firm. Michael Ebeid was appointed as National Chair, with that appointment taking effect on August 12, 2026.
The firm’s action against Hoggett followed an internal investigation into how she handled and retained confidential client audit files and board documents. Those documents were reportedly stored in a physical locker in KPMG’s Sydney office.
Hoggett’s legal challenge takes aim at how that investigation was conducted, not just its outcome. Her case argues that the firm breached the partnership agreement by denying her adequate access to the materials used against her in the internal process and by cutting short her opportunity to respond before the expulsion decision was made. These are procedural fairness claims — they go to the question of whether the process was fair, not only whether the outcome was correct. A NSW Supreme Court summons has been lodged in her name against a KPMG entity, with the first hearing scheduled for September 23.
That kind of argument matters in partnership law because partners are not employees. Their rights and protections come from the partnership deed, not standard employment legislation. A partner challenging expulsion on procedural grounds must demonstrate that the firm’s own internal procedures — as set out in the partnership agreement — were not followed. Courts may ultimately provide guidance on what minimum procedural standards look like in that context, which would have implications beyond this individual case.
Separately from Hoggett’s lawsuit, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission told a parliamentary committee that it had opened formal investigations into individual registered company auditors at KPMG. Those investigations cover two distinct issues: the potential misuse of confidential information belonging to Lendlease, and the alleged misuse of confidential information belonging to Optus.
ASIC also told the committee that it saw gaps in its own regulatory powers over audit partnerships and raised concerns about whistleblower protections and governance arrangements inside those firms.
These are three separate but overlapping threads: Hoggett’s personal legal claim, KPMG’s own governance restructure, and ASIC’s independent regulatory investigations. They are not the same thing. A finding in one does not establish anything in the others.
The scrutiny of KPMG Australia does not exist in isolation. In 2023, the PwC consulting scandal — in which confidential Treasury tax-reform briefings were shared internally by a partner — prompted a sweeping re-examination of how professional services firms manage conflicts of interest and confidential information. That inquiry sharpened parliamentary and regulatory appetite for tighter oversight of all Big Four practices. The ASIC hearing into KPMG in June 2026 was partly a product of that heightened scrutiny.
What ties them together is a broader conversation in Australia about how Big Four audit firms — KPMG, Deloitte, EY, and PwC — are overseen. Parliamentary committees have been examining audit independence, partner conduct, and conflict-of-interest management across the sector. ASIC has identified regulatory gaps and raised specific concerns about the framework for overseeing audit partnerships.
Hoggett’s case has not yet been decided. The allegations she makes in court filings are her claims, not established facts. KPMG’s internal investigation findings have not been independently tested in a public proceeding. The ASIC investigations into Lendlease and Optus matters are ongoing.
What has been confirmed: KPMG announced a governance overhaul. Two senior partners left. Hoggett filed in the NSW Supreme Court. ASIC is investigating. The intersection of those four facts is the real story here.
