The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgement in R (Holmcroft Properties Ltd) v KPMG LLP. The case had raised the issue of whether KPMG, as a “skilled person” appointed to carry out an independent review of Barclays in the context of the IRHP redress scheme, could be judicially reviewed.
The High Court had held that the role did not have sufficient public law flavour to be amenable to judicial review, despite being woven into the then FSA’s regulatory function. The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision, but said the analysis was more complicated. Its views were based mainly on the wider regulatory context and the fact the regulator was not involved in negotiations with individual customers that resulted from the KPMG recommendations, and the wider factual context, that any compensation agreed under the scheme would be enforceable by the courts, with FSA having no system to intervene.