
Eurocell plc Annual Report and Accounts 2022 129
Strategic
Report
Financial
Statements
Corporate
Governance
We use performance materiality to reduce to an appropriately low
level the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected
misstatements exceeds overall materiality. Specically, we use
performance materiality in determining the scope of our audit and
the nature and extent of our testing of account balances, classes
of transactions and disclosures, for example in determining sample
sizes. Our performance materiality was 75% (2021: 75%) of overall
materiality, amounting to £1,050,000 (2021: £1,000,000) for the group
nancial statements and £563,000 (2021: £451,000) for the company
nancial statements.
In determining the performance materiality, we considered a number
of factors – the history of misstatements, risk assessment and
aggregation risk and the effectiveness of controls – and concluded that
an amount at the upper end of our normal range was appropriate.
We agreed with the Audit and Risk Committee that we would report to
them misstatements identied during our audit above £70,000 (group
audit) (2021: £67,000) and £37,500 (company audit) (2021: £30,000)
as well as misstatements below those amounts that, in our view,
warranted reporting for qualitative reasons.
CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO GOING CONCERN
Our evaluation of the directors’ assessment of the group’s and the
company’s ability to continue to adopt the going concern basis of
accounting included:
• Discussions with management and those charged with governance
regarding the future plans and cash ow projections for the group.
This included discussions around the forecast cash requirements
and sufciency of available facilities to deal with a severe but
plausible downside to these projections;
• We obtained management’s analysis and cash ow model. We
checked this for consistency (i.e the integrity of the model) and that
the base projections agreed to the approved budgets and were
consistent with our work in other areas, for example the projections
were consistent with those used for the impairment reviews;
• We considered the accuracy of management’s forecasting in prior
years by comparing actual to forecast cash ows in the past ve
years (i.e.the period for which the senior management team has
remained materially unchanged);
• We discussed with management the basis of the “base case” and
what factors had been considered in their downside “sensitised
case”. We recalculated management’s assessment of the impact
of these scenarios on the forecasted compliance with nancial
covenants and sufciency of facilities/available cash;
• We considered the reported headroom on facilities at each month
end for the review period (i.e until 31 December 2024);
• We challenged management around which scenarios would be
required prior to the covenant facilities being breached or available
facilities being breached and considered if these were plausible or
possible. This included performing our own sensitivities to ascertain
the levels of underperformance required to breach;
• We reviewed the debt facilities to ascertain if management had
correctly factored in nancial covenants to their model, including
that covenants were appropriately calculated at each measurement
point, and expected to be met during the assessment period (i.e.
until 31December 2024);
• We audited management’s compliance with the covenants
during2022;
• We critically assessed the disclosures in relation to going concern
compared to the evidence obtained above, our understanding of
the group and the various requirements detailed within Company
Law, the Listing Rules and accounting standards; and
• For the Eurocell plc company going concern assessment we
have reviewed management’s analysis of the company cash
ows, checked for consistency with the consolidated model
(including the mathematical accuracy of the model), reviewed the
committed cash outows compared to the available funds (being
cash reserves and forecast dividend receipts from subsidiaries),
considered the sufciency of management’s assessment of head
room and critically assessed the disclosures in note 35. No issues
were noted arising from these procedures.
Based on the work we have performed, we have not identied any
material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually
or collectively, may cast signicant doubt on the group’s and the
company’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at
least twelve months from when the nancial statements are authorised
for issue.
In auditing the nancial statements, we have concluded that the
directors’ use of the going concern basis of accounting in the
preparation of the nancial statements is appropriate.
However, because not all future events or conditions can be predicted,
this conclusion is not a guarantee as to the group’s and the company’s
ability to continue as a going concern.
In relation to the directors’ reporting on how they have applied the
UK Corporate Governance Code, we have nothing material to add or
draw attention to in relation to the directors’ statement in the nancial
statements about whether the directors considered it appropriate to
adopt the going concern basis of accounting.
Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the directors with respect
to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this report.
REPORTING ON OTHER INFORMATION
The other information comprises all of the information in the Annual
Report other than the nancial statements and our auditors’ report
thereon. The directors are responsible for the other information,
which includes reporting based on the Task Force on Climate-related
Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations. Our opinion on
the nancial statements does not cover the other information and,
accordingly, we do not express an audit opinion or, except to the
extent otherwise explicitly stated in this report, any form of assurance
thereon.
In connection with our audit of the nancial statements, our
responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so,
consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with
the nancial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit,
or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If we identify an
apparent material inconsistency or material misstatement, we are
required to perform procedures to conclude whether there is a material
misstatement of the nancial statements or a material misstatement of
the other information. If, based on the work we have performed, we
conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information,
we are required to report that fact. We have nothing to report based
on these responsibilities.