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.’
Cases
CRR Case Summaries and Entity-specific Press Notices (Excel version)
| Entity | Kodal Minerals Plc |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | RSM UK Audit LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Gain on partial disposal of a subsidiary We asked for further information about the basis on which the gain on partial disposal of Kodal Mining UK Limited (KMUK), a subsidiary, was calculated. The company provided a satisfactory response. In closing the matter, we highlighted ways in which future disclosures in this area could be enhanced. Discontinued operations We sought to understand the basis on which the partial disposal of KMUK failed to meet the IFRS 5 ‘Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations’ definition of a discontinued operation. The company provided a satisfactory response. In closing the matter, we observed that it would be helpful if the company presented, in future accounts, disclosures explaining why the partial disposal of KMUK did not meet the definition of a discontinued operation. |
| Entity | Learning Technologies Group Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Presentation and disclosure of contract liabilities, contract assets and receivables We asked the company to explain references to net presentation of contract liabilities, to present disclosures relating to its remaining performance obligations, and to provide an analysis of its contract liabilities. The company agreed to clarify the language used to disclose the amount of consideration invoiced in advance of performance but not yet due, and which consequently had not been recognised, despite use of terminology which suggested that this may have been netted off other amounts. The company also acknowledged that the exemption in paragraph 121 of IFRS 15, ‘Revenue from Contracts with Customers’, had been erroneously applied to its remaining performance obligations under fixed-price contracts, and agreed to disclose the relevant information in its future annual reports and accounts. |
| Entity | Lift Global Ventures Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Edwards Veeder (UK) Limited |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Revenue recognition and expected credit losses In the light of significant expected credit losses on trade receivables, we asked the company about its approach to revenue recognition, as the standard requires the collection of the consideration to be probable. We also sought clarification of an apparent inconsistency in movements on expected credit losses between the income statement and the notes to the accounts. The company provided satisfactory explanations and agreed to improve its disclosures around credit risk in its future reports and accounts. Segmental information We queried the presentation of segmental information, and the company agreed to supplement its existing disclosures with a measure of segmental profit or loss along with a reconciliation to the company’s overall results and an explanation of inter-segmental allocation of costs. We also asked the company to confirm the results of its subsidiary, Miriad Limited, as it was not clear how segmental information reconciled with the narrative in the strategic report. The company explained that, in the strategic report, it compared measures that were based on different time periods. We encouraged the company to provide greater clarity when making such comparisons in future. Equity investments We asked the company to explain the basis for categorising its equity investments as Level 1 in the fair value hierarchy, as it appeared, from previous report and accounts, that one of the investments related to a private company. The company explained that the value of its investment in the private company reduced to nil during the year and that all remaining investments were considered Level 1. On closing this matter, we observed that we would have expected an explanation of this significant decrease in value to have been included in the strategic report. Other cash flow presentation matters We asked the company to explain certain differences between amounts shown in the consolidated and parent company statements of cash flows and amounts reported elsewhere in the accounts. The company provided an explanation for the differences. We encouraged it to distinguish more clearly between cash and non-cash transactions. We also questioned an apparent issuance of shares by the company to its subsidiary. The company clarified that this was not the case and that the shares were received from customers in lieu of cash to settle trade receivable balances. The company improved its disclosure in its subsequent interim accounts. |
| Entity | Melrose Industries PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Natwest Group PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Nexus Infrastructure plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | MacIntyre Hudson |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Impairment testing of goodwill and investments in subsidiaries In respect of the consolidated accounts, we requested further details of the assumptions used in the company’s calculations of value in use and the basis on which management had determined these assumptions. We closed the matter after the company gave a satisfactory response and agreed to disclose the long-term growth rate used in future annual reports. In respect of the parent company accounts, we asked the company for further details of its approach to determining the recoverable amount of the parent company’s investments in subsidiaries and the sensitivity of the recoverable amount to a reasonably possible change in key assumptions. The company provided a satisfactory response in respect of these matters. |
| Entity | Persimmon Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Primary Health Properties PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Project Solar UK Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Cooper Parry Group Limited |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | RIT Capital Partners plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Rothschild & Co Continuation Finance PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Senior plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Thames Water Utilities Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Revenue recognition in respect of Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) charges We asked the company to give a more detailed explanation of its accounting policy for recognising revenue relating to amounts received from TTT charges. The company provided a satisfactory response and confirmed that it considered the profits arising from TTT charges to be unrealised. The company agreed to enhance its future disclosures, to explain further the reasoning for revenue in respect of TTT charges being recognised in the current period, and to clarify the distinction between water and wastewater charges (within which TTT charges are billed) and infrastructure charges. Capitalisation of impairment loss on property We sought clarification of the treatment of an impairment loss on property, which had been capitalised into the cost of infrastructure assets under construction. The company agreed to enhance its disclosures relating to land and buildings purchased to facilitate the construction of the wider TTT asset and costs capitalised into the cost of construction. We observed that, where a decline in value arises from consuming the economic benefits of the property through its intended use, it is likely to represent depreciation, under the cost model in IAS 16, ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’, rather than impairment. We encouraged the company to review its accounting policy for these assets, to ensure that depreciation is recognised on a systematic basis by reference to the pattern of consumption. Cash flow statement presentation of dividends and payment for surrender of tax losses We enquired about the company’s presentation of an operating cash inflow for group relief and a financing cash outflow for a dividend, in the light of disclosure indicating that these amounts had been settled without the use of cash or cash equivalents. The company explained how it had entered into a settlement deed with other group companies, and that additional disclosures had been provided in the notes enabling users to understand the nature of the transactions. Having considered the company’s explanation, we did not agree that the arrangement provided sufficient grounds for presenting these transactions in the cash flow statement, because there was no actual movement of cash or cash equivalents. The company agreed to restate the comparative figures in its 2024/25 statement of cash flows, to exclude the non-cash amounts. In disclosing the restatement, the company noted that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | The Bankers Investment Trust PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 October 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Cash and cash equivalents We queried why the closing balance of cash and cash equivalents included in the cash flow statement was not consistent with the equivalent amount included in the balance sheet. The company acknowledged that there had been an error in the cash flow statement, which they had previously identified, primarily due to an omission of a line item relating to the movement in ‘securities sold for future settlement’ and a classification error in relation to ‘interest paid’. The company confirmed that it will restate the comparatives in its next Annual Report and provide the appropriate disclosures in relation to the misstatement. Calculation of alternative performance measures (‘APMs’) We asked the company to explain how it had calculated net asset value (‘NAV’) per share total return as we were not able to recalculate it from the balances included in the Annual Report. The company explained that the method of calculating NAV had changed during the year to include debt at fair value, which had previously been included at book value, which had led to a 2.8% increase in the NAV per share total return reported in the year. We reminded the company that the European Securities and Markets Authority Guidelines on APMs require that APMs should be consistent over time and, if redefined, the change should be explained and restated comparative figures should be provided. The company agreed to include a reconciliation of the current and prior year calculations in its next Annual Report. |
| Entity | T J Morris Group Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Malthouse & Company |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Fair value of investment properties We asked the company to explain its accounting policy of holding investment properties at cost, in a departure from the fair value measurement requirements of FRS 102, ‘The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland’. The company acknowledged that it had been unable to complete a valuation as at 30 June 2024 on a timely basis when preparing the accounts for that period. The company undertook to include within its next set of filed accounts a revised accounting policy for investment properties, and the outcome of its revaluation assessment as at 30 June 2025. Reorganisation transactions and distributions We sought clarification of the transactions giving effect to the group’s reorganisation and distributions. The company gave a satisfactory response and agreed to include the relevant disclosures regarding the application of merger accounting within the accounts for the year ended 30 June 2025, to explain movements in the comparative period. We questioned whether the parent company’s profit for the period to 30 June 2024 wholly represented realised profits. The company provided an analysis of the distributions and other income received by the company, from which it appeared that certain amounts consisted of non-qualifying consideration. The company agreed to ensure that only realised gains and losses will be recognised in its future accounts for profit or loss in any period, other than where a specific exception applies. We did not consider it proportionate to pursue this matter in respect of the period to 30 June 2024. |