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 | Halfords Group plc |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 28 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Revenue recognition for the Cycle2Work scheme We asked the company for further information about the recognition of revenue for the Cycle2Work scheme, and the basis on which revenue was recognised as agent or principal for sales supplied through independent bike dealers. The company provided the requested information and explained the basis for recognising revenue from independent bike dealer sales as principal. The company also agreed to enhance the accounting policy disclosures for this type of revenue. |
| Entity | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Global LLP |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 April 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Inframobility UK Topco Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 3 May 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Jadestone Energy plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte (NI) Limited |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Asset Retirement Obligation liabilities We asked the company why a reduction in its asset retirement obligation (‘ARO’) had been recognised in other income, rather than against oil and gas properties. The company explained that when it recognised a reduction in the ARO associated with the CWLH oil field, it first reduced the associated oil and gas properties to zero and recognised the excess in profit or loss in accordance with IFRIC 1, ‘Changes in Existing Decommissioning, Restoration and Similar Liabilities’. It agreed to expand its accounting policy to explain the accounting in these circumstances. Valuation of oil and gas properties We also observed that the company had acquired interests in the CWLH oil field in two equal tranches at different points in time and had recognised a relatively low fair value of oil and gas properties when it made the second acquisition during the year. It was unclear why this was not considered an impairment indicator in relation to the first tranche of oil and gas properties, and we asked the company to clarify. The company explained the circumstances that led to a lower fair value recognised in the second acquisition, and that it did not consider it to be an impairment indicator for the first tranche. We were not persuaded by the latter point; however, we did not consider it proportionate to pursue the matter further as the company had separately explained that all CWLH oil and gas properties had been subsequently written down to zero when it recognised an adjustment to the associated ARO (see section above). Accounting for decommissioning fund We asked the company to explain the basis for recognising and measuring the interest in the CWLH decommissioning fund, presented as a non-current receivable on the balance sheet, and how the requirements of IFRIC 5, ‘Rights to Interests arising from Decommissioning, Restoration and Environmental Rehabilitation Funds’, had been considered. We closed our enquiries after the company satisfactorily explained its basis for concluding that it does not have control, joint control or significant influence over the fund, as well as its basis for presenting its interest in the fund as a non-current receivable. We also welcomed the company’s proposals to enhance its disclosures, to explain the basis on which the fund is considered recoverable. |
| Entity | Jaguar Land Rover Automotive plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Accounting for the sale of goods to customers with repurchase arrangements We asked for additional information to help us understand the accounting policy for vehicles sold with repurchase arrangements and how this is consistent with the requirements of IFRS 15, ‘Revenue from Contracts with Customers’. We closed our enquiry after the company provided satisfactory explanations. |
| Entity | JPMorgan Asia Growth & Income plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Judges Scientific plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Offsetting of cash balances and bank overdraft in the consolidated accounts We asked whether the company had offset cash balances against a bank overdraft in its consolidated accounts and, if so, how it met the conditions for offsetting. The company confirmed the offsetting and accepted that, whilst it had the legal right of offset, the other condition for offsetting had not been met and therefore agreed to restate the comparative amounts in the 2025 report and accounts. As the restatement affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Impairment of investment in subsidiary We sought clarification on the company’s impairment analysis for its investment in a subsidiary. We closed our enquiries after the company provided the requested explanations. |
| Entity | Keepmoat Homes Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 October 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Lift Global Ventures Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Edwards Veeder (UK) Limited |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Warrants over listed securities We asked the company to explain the accounting applied to warrants received, as it was unclear why a financial liability had been recognised in addition to a financial asset. The company satisfactorily explained that the financial liability represented a payable commission. It also confirmed that the warrants had since been exercised. We also queried the basis for categorising the warrants within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, given that volatility appeared to be a significant unobservable input, which would ordinarily indicate a Level 3 category. The company noted our observations and agreed to consider them, if relevant, going forward. Claim received after the reporting date We asked the company for clarification regarding the disclosure of a claim received after the reporting date. We closed our enquiry after it explained that the amount subject to the claim was included within the financial liability recognised in relation to the warrants. |
| Entity | Mitchells & Butlers plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 27 September 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Moonpig Group plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 April 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Nanoco Group plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 July 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | NewRiver REIT plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Classification of amounts owed from subsidiary undertakings We sought clarification of the basis on which certain amounts owed from subsidiary undertakings were classified as current assets in the parent company balance sheet. The company agreed to reconsider the classification adopted for part of the balance in the comparative figures of its 2026 annual report and accounts. |
| Entity | NORTHERN 3 VCT PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Assumptions underpinning the fair value of investments We asked the company for additional information about the significant unobservable assumptions applied in the valuation of the company’s unquoted investments. The company satisfactorily provided this information and confirmed that they planned to further disaggregate their investments, by valuation methodology, and provide corresponding information about the unobservable inputs and related sensitivity analysis, in future accounts. |
| Entity | Ocado Group Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 1 June 2025 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2026 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Investment in Ocado Retail Limited (ORL) We requested further information from the company regarding the key assumptions used to determine the fair value of its 50% interest in ORL on initial recognition as an associate, following the loss of control. The company provided the relevant information and explained the basis on which it concluded that the measurement was consistent with IFRS 13, ‘Fair Value Measurement’. |