The High Court has quashed a decision by Chartered Accountants Ireland’s Independent Review Committee (IRC) that there was no case to answer over a price survey commissioned by Aldi, and sent the complaint back for fresh assessment by a differently constituted committee.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled that the IRC failed to give Lidl Ireland GmbH intelligible reasons for reversing its earlier view that the survey’s design and methodology raised a case to answer. The court did not decide whether the survey was professionally flawed or whether Grant Thornton, the notice party, had breached its professional obligations.
Grant Thornton conducted the survey in February 2018 across five Irish supermarket chains, including Lidl and Aldi. Aldi was ranked marginally cheaper than Lidl, and the results were widely publicised. Lidl complained to Chartered Accountants Ireland, alleging that the methodology was flawed and did not compare like with like.
After an initial finding of no case to answer, an independent reviewer concluded that the investigation had not adequately examined whether cheaper products were available in Lidl stores during the survey, or whether comparing in-store prices with an Aldi master price list was reliable. The matter was referred to the IRC.
On 28 January 2020, the IRC considered that the survey might have significant weaknesses and directed that a draft formal allegation be prepared. Grant Thornton responded on 4 March. The IRC did not provide that letter to Lidl for comment. On 16 March, it reversed its earlier view and decided there was no case to answer, saying the firm’s further information made it more likely that a disciplinary tribunal would regard its decisions as reasonable professional judgment. It added that questions remained about the quality of the work.
Justice Ferriter rejected Lidl’s argument that fair procedures required the committee to share Grant Thornton’s submissions or invite a response. The regulations did not give complainants a general right to access material submitted by the member under investigation. The IRC could consider new information before its final decision and was not required to ask Lidl for further submissions.
However, the decision’s reference to “further information and explanations” did not explain what had led the IRC to reverse its earlier view. Because Lidl had not seen Grant Thornton’s letter or other investigation materials, it could not understand the basis for the decision or assess whether it was lawful. The court found that the IRC breached its duty under the regulations to give reasons.
The court granted certiorari quashing the decision and remitted the complaint for fresh assessment by a differently constituted IRC. It did not order the IRC to provide further reasons or determine the underlying complaint.