CRR Case Summaries and Entity-specific Press Notices
The FRC publishes, on a quarterly basis, summaries of its findings from recently closed reviews that resulted in a substantive question to a company (‘Case Summaries’). In addition, it publishes the names of companies whose reviews were closed in the previous quarter without the need for a substantive question. No Case Summary is prepared for such reviews.
Case Summaries, which are available for cases closed in the quarter ending March 2021 onwards, are included in the table below. As, currently, the FRC is subject to existing legal restrictions on disclosing confidential information received from a company, the Case Summaries can only be disclosed with the company's consent. Where consent has been withheld by the company, that fact is disclosed in the table.
From March 2018 until March 2021, the FRC published the names of companies whose reviews were closed in the previous quarter but did not prepare Case Summaries. However, on an exceptional basis, specific cases may be publicised through entity-specific Press Notices, which can also be found in the table below.
The FRC’s reviews are based solely on the company’s annual report and accounts (or interim reports) and do not benefit from detailed knowledge of the company’s business or an understanding of the underlying transactions entered into. They are, however, conducted by staff of the FRC who have an understanding of the relevant legal and accounting framework. The FRC’s correspondence with the company provides no assurance that the annual report and accounts (or interim reports) are correct in all material respects; the FRC’s role is not to verify the information provided but to consider compliance with reporting requirements. The FRC’s correspondence is written on the basis that the FRC (which includes the FRC’s officers, employees and agents) accepts no liability for reliance on its letters or Case Summaries by the company or any third party, including but not limited to investors and shareholders.
Key
- Only a certain number of CRR’s reviews result in substantive questioning of the Board. Matters raised may cover questions of recognition, measurement and/or disclosure.
- CRR’s routine reviews of companies’ annual reports and accounts generally cover all parts over which the FRC has statutory powers (that is, strategic reports, directors’ reports and financial statements). Similarly, CRR’s routine reviews of companies’ interim reports will generally cover all information in that document. Limited scope reviews arise for a number of reasons, including those conducted when a company’s annual report and accounts or interim report are selected for thematic review or reviews that have been prompted by a complaint. In accordance with the FRC's Operating Procedures, for Corporate Reporting Review, CRR does not identify those companies whose reviews were prompted by a complaint.
- The FRC may ask a company to refer to its exchanges with CRR when the company makes a change to a significant aspect of its annual report and accounts or interim report in response to a review.
- Case closed after 1 January 2021 but performed under operating procedures that did not allow for the publication of Case Summaries.
- From the quarter ended June 2023, the FRC started identifying the auditor of the annual report and accounts, or the audit firm that issued a review report on the interim report, that was the subject of the CRR review. This information was also back-dated for closed cases publicised from the quarter ended September 2022. Cases marked N/A relate to those published prior to September 2022 or interim reviews that did not have a review opinion.’
Case Summaries
CRR Case Summaries and Entity-specific Press Notices (Excel version)
| Entity | Scottish Power Limited |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Shaftesbury Capital PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Classification of amounts due from subsidiary undertakings
Statement of cash flows We asked the company to explain the rationale for classifying certain intercompany cash flows in the parent company cash flow statement as operating activities. The company noted that it intended to adopt FRS 101, ‘Reduced Disclosure Framework’, and will not present a parent company statement of cash flows in its future reporting. We closed our enquiries on this basis. |
| Entity | South East Water Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | SThree plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Interim dividends We asked the company to clarify the basis on which its FY22 and FY23 interim dividends had both been recognised as paid in the financial year ended 30 November 2023. The company provided further information to support the timing of the recognition in the statement of changes in equity and agreed to clarify the wording of its accounting policy to explain the trigger event for recognition. The company’s response prompted subsequent questions about the timing of the recognition in the consolidated statement of cash flows of payments made to its share administrator relating to these interim dividends. The company explained that a partial prepayment of the FY22 interim dividend, transferred to its share administrator in the year ended 30 November 2022, had been reported within movements in receivables in cash flows from operating activities in the consolidated statement of cash flows for that year, rather than as a dividend payment within cash flows from financing activities. In the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year ended 30 November 2023, this dividend payment was reported as a cash outflow in financing activities, with a corresponding cash inflow reported in movements in receivables. As a result of our correspondence, the company decided to restate the comparative figures in its 2024 annual report and accounts for this misclassification and referred to our interaction with them in the note explaining the restatement. |
| Entity | Team Internet Group Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Crowe U.K. LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Tern PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | CLA Evelyn Partners Limited |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Going concern We requested clarification of the basis on which the directors satisfied themselves that the company was a going concern, and whether there were material uncertainties or significant judgements that should have been disclosed in making this determination. The company explained its assessment, why it believed that there was no material uncertainty, and that no significant judgement was involved. Nevertheless, we noted that some judgement was involved in this assessment given that the going concern status appeared to be dependent on events not wholly within the company’s control. In the light of this, the company agreed to consider carefully, whether the disclosure of a material uncertainty or a significant judgement may be necessary, should similar circumstances arise in the future. Sources of estimation uncertainty We enquired about the company’s disclosures under IAS 1, ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’ regarding major sources of estimation uncertainty in respect of the valuation of investments classified as Level 3 in the fair value hierarchy. The company explained that, as materially all of the valuations were based on the unadjusted price of a recent fundraise, the key estimates disclosed with respect to the valuation of investments were not sources of estimation uncertainty requiring disclosure under IAS 1. We closed our enquiry but encouraged the company to explain in future reporting that such disclosures represent uncertainties not within the scope of IAS 1. We also recommended that the company clarify the classification within the fair value hierarchy of these financial investments, and the methodology used in their valuation, as they appeared to represent Level 2 measurements |
| Entity | The Edinburgh Investment Trust plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | The Pebble Group plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | The Unite Group PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Tullow Oil plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Kenyan Exploration & Evaluation (E&E) assets We asked the company to explain the basis on which it used a value in use methodology to estimate the recoverable amount of the Kenyan E&E assets, as cash flows used in this approach should be limited to those arising from the assets in their current condition. The company provided further information about the progress of the project in question, which supported its value in use approach. We asked the company to provide more information about the judgements made, assumptions and risk adjustments applied to estimate the portion of oil and gas resources that might be reserves in the future, so as to forecast the cash flows for the Kenya project, and whether this was considered to involve significant estimation uncertainty. The company satisfactorily provided the information requested, explained why it did not consider it to be a source of significant estimation uncertainty, and agreed to include this explanation in future sets of accounts. In relation to the approach taken to assess the recoverability of the E&E assets, which involved risk-adjusting cash flows with a probability percentage reflecting estimated project success, we asked the company to explain what judgements it made when estimating this probability. We also asked the company to explain why neither information about the assumptions underlying the calculation of the overall probability percentage, nor the sensitivity of the calculation to changes in those assumptions, was disclosed in the accounts. The company explained the judgements performed, and the reasons why it believed that existing disclosures complied with the necessary financial reporting requirements but agreed to enhance disclosures to clarify the fact that the overall probability weighting drives the recoverable value of the E&E assets. We closed the point after acknowledging that IAS 1 requires the exercise of judgement by management in determining the extent of disclosures relating to significant estimates. Climate-related metrics and targets disclosures We asked the company to confirm the basis of calculation of its greenhouse gas emissions targets, as it appeared to be different to the basis on which emissions were reported in the accounts. The company explained the bases on which it calculated its targets and agreed to disclose data on all relevant bases going forward. Impairment reversal We asked the company to explain the basis for a large reversal during the year of a previously recognised impairment loss against the investment in a subsidiary. The company satisfactorily explained the events and circumstances which led to the reversal, and agreed to disclose this information, where relevant, in future sets of accounts. |
| Entity | Volex Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Whitbread PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 28 August 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Aberforth Smaller Companies Trust plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | Johnston Carmichael LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Admiral Group Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Albion KAY VCT PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | Johnston Carmichael LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |