Latest:
PriceWaterhouseCoopers and Jarvis in legal wrangle
00:00 07 Jun 2000
|
Exclusive by Carol Millett
A legal dispute between Jarvis and accountant PriceWaterhouseCoopers is listed to appear in the Companies Court in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division on or sometime after June 6 this year. By order of one of the court registrars, no details of the dispute are being released to third parties.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers resigned as Jarvis's auditor on 3 March this year, four weeks before the company's year end and in the run up to the publication of the company's annual accounts (CJ 27 April page 1).
The opening paragraph of PWC's letter of resignation, which has been lodged at Companies House, states: "In accordance with section 392 of the Companies Act 1985, we give notice that we are resigning as auditors of Jarvis plc, with effect from the date of this letter." The rest of the letter has been withheld.
The Act requires: "Where an auditor ceases for any reason to hold office, he shall deposit at the company's registered office a statement of any circumstances connected with his ceasing to hold office which he considers should be brought to the attention of the members or creditors of the company or, if he considers that there are no such circumstances, a statement that there are none."
Also under the Act, a company or an aggrieved party has the right to withhold the contents of an auditor's letter of resignation if it believes the contents of the letter are "being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory material".
The matter is then dealt with by the Companies Court.
If the court upholds the complaint, the judge may direct that copies of the letter need not be sent out to shareholders or creditors. If the court upholds the contents of the letter, then the company must send copies of the letter to all interested parties within 14 days of the judge's decision.
On 28 April, Jarvis issued the statement: "Following a regular benchmarking review of the cost to the company of advisors, the company was unable to agree fees with PWC for the audit."
Both Jarvis and PWC refused to comment on the court case.
A legal dispute between Jarvis and accountant PriceWaterhouseCoopers is listed to appear in the Companies Court in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division on or sometime after June 6 this year. By order of one of the court registrars, no details of the dispute are being released to third parties.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers resigned as Jarvis's auditor on 3 March this year, four weeks before the company's year end and in the run up to the publication of the company's annual accounts (CJ 27 April page 1).
The opening paragraph of PWC's letter of resignation, which has been lodged at Companies House, states: "In accordance with section 392 of the Companies Act 1985, we give notice that we are resigning as auditors of Jarvis plc, with effect from the date of this letter." The rest of the letter has been withheld.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Act requires: "Where an auditor ceases for any reason to hold office, he shall deposit at the company's registered office a statement of any circumstances connected with his ceasing to hold office which he considers should be brought to the attention of the members or creditors of the company or, if he considers that there are no such circumstances, a statement that there are none."
Also under the Act, a company or an aggrieved party has the right to withhold the contents of an auditor's letter of resignation if it believes the contents of the letter are "being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory material".
The matter is then dealt with by the Companies Court.
If the court upholds the complaint, the judge may direct that copies of the letter need not be sent out to shareholders or creditors. If the court upholds the contents of the letter, then the company must send copies of the letter to all interested parties within 14 days of the judge's decision.
On 28 April, Jarvis issued the statement: "Following a regular benchmarking review of the cost to the company of advisors, the company was unable to agree fees with PWC for the audit."
Both Jarvis and PWC refused to comment on the court case.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT