The Court of Appeal has dismissed Peter Nowak’s appeal against the refusal of his application for judicial review of a decision by the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority. The Authority had decided not to examine further whether the Chartered Accountants’ Regulatory Board (CARB) properly handled Nowak’s concerns about two PwC audits.
Nowak complained to CARB in September 2011, alleging non-compliance with accounting and auditing standards. In October 2012, CARB’s senior complaints case manager, Derek Dee, told him that the material did not evidence a breach and that no complaint file or preliminary investigation had been opened. Nowak sought an independent review, but was told that this was unavailable because CARB had not opened a formal complaint file.
He then asked the Authority to examine CARB’s decision. In June 2014, it said it had found no issue warranting further examination under its statutory functions. The High Court refused Nowak’s judicial review application in February 2015. He appealed, arguing, among other things, that the Authority’s decision was unreasonable and that it had failed to give adequate reasons.
The Court of Appeal held that the Authority was not an appeals body rehearing CARB’s decision. Its separate statutory role was to decide whether to inquire into CARB’s decision not to investigate a possible standards breach, with an inquiry concerned with compliance with approved procedures. The court accepted that CARB had received and considered Nowak’s material, but found that this did not necessarily mean it had treated the submission as an admissible complaint under its disciplinary rules.
The judgment described the distinction between an ordinary complaint and one admitted into the formal process as a source of confusion. It concluded that the Authority could take account of the factual basis for CARB’s decision and that it was reasonable not to proceed where CARB had considered the practices complained of to be standard professional methods. The court found no demonstrated error in the High Court’s analysis of the Authority’s decision or its reasons.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s refusal of judicial review in place. The Court of Appeal expressly declined to decide whether Nowak had standing to challenge the Authority’s procedure or decision, saying that issue was not necessary to resolve the appeal.