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 | Restore plc |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Dilapidation provisions We asked the company to clarify the basis for not recognising a dilapidation provision for properties expected to be held to the end of their useful life. The company explained that no provision was recognised in respect of these properties as any obligation is extinguished through an ongoing maintenance program. The company also undertook to clarify the relevant critical accounting estimates and judgements policy in future reports and accounts. Customer incentives We sought to understand the nature of the customer incentives capitalised, the revenue stream to which they related, and the basis for their capitalisation. The company clarified that customer incentives arise in respect of the information management business and satisfactorily explained the basis for their capitalisation. The company also undertook to enhance the relevant accounting policies and disclosures in future reports and accounts. |
| Entity | S4 Capital plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Scancell Holdings plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 April 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | RSM UK Audit LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Science Group plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Grant Thornton UK LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Statement of cash flows We asked the company to explain the nature of amounts owed by/to group undertakings and the basis for classifying them as cash flows from operating activities in its parent company Statement of Cash Flows. The company explained the amounts and noted that certain items should have been classified as cash flows from investing or financing activities. However, the company also noted that it intended to adopt FRS 101, ‘Reduced Disclosure Framework’, for its 2025 parent company accounts and, therefore, would not be presenting this primary statement in future periods. We closed our enquiry on this basis. |
| Entity | Smith & Nephew plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Accounting policy for orthopaedic instruments We asked the company to provide further information on its accounting policy for recognising orthopaedic instruments. These were initially recognised as inventory while held prior to either sale or provision to customers for use on consignment, and then subsequently transferred to Property, Plant and Equipment (PPE) if provided on consignment. The company acknowledged that orthopaedic instruments expected to be provided to customers for use on consignment rather than held for sale, should have been initially recognised as PPE, rather than inventory, reflecting their expected deployment and extended useful life of three to seven years. The company agreed to change its accounting treatment in future reports and accounts. It does not intend to restate comparative amounts as it has concluded that the effect of this would not be material. Impairment reversal indicator for an investment in an associate We asked the company to explain the basis on which it had concluded that it had not identified an indicator of potential reversal of a previous impairment of an investment in Bioventus Inc, an associate. Our question was prompted by the observation that the fair value less cost of disposal (FVLCD) of the investment, based on its market price, was greater than its carrying amount. The company explained the basis for its conclusion and also undertook to consider our observation regarding FVLCD in its assessment of indicators of reversal of impairment in the next year’s report and accounts. Having received such an undertaking we concluded that it would not be proportionate to pursue this matter further. |
| Entity | Speedy Hire Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Impairment testing of goodwill and the parent company’s investment in subsidiaries We asked the company to explain its assumptions relating to forecast revenue in the testing of goodwill for impairment. The company provided a satisfactory response, and agreed to enhance its future disclosure of forecasting assumptions and the sensitivity of the recoverable amount to changes in them. We also asked for further explanation of the method for estimating the recoverable amount of subsidiaries held by the parent company. The company again provided a satisfactory response, and agreed to expand disclosure around the impairment testing undertaken, specific to the parent company’s investment in subsidiaries, in its next financial statements. Offsetting arrangements for financial instruments We sought clarification of the basis on which the company concluded that it was appropriate to offset an element of its bank borrowings against cash deposits. The company explained the relevant features of its financing arrangement, since terminated, and the basis for concluding that the criteria for offsetting had been met. We observed that, were the company to enter into a similar arrangement in the future, it should consider the disclosure requirements relating to restricted cash and cash equivalent balances and collateral. |
| Entity | Spire Healthcare Group plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Starling Bank Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | STV Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Statement of cash flows We asked the company to explain the basis for classifying the purchase of additional shares in subsidiary undertakings as a cash flow from investing activities in the consolidated statement of cash flows as this classification appeared inconsistent with the requirements of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’. The company agreed that this payment should have been classified as a financing activity in the cash flow statement and to restate the comparatives in its next report and accounts. There was no impact on net cash flows for the period. As this related to a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Supreme PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Tata Steel Europe Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Taylor Wimpey plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 29 June 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Templeton Emerging Markets Investment Trust plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | The City Of London Investment Trust plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | The Law Debenture Corporation p.l.c. (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Dividend liability We asked the company to explain the basis for recognising a liability for an interim dividend which had not been paid until after the year end. The company acknowledged that recognising a liability was inconsistent with its accounting policy and agreed to restate the 31 December 2024 position in its next report and accounts. As the change affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |