The one word that will determine if PwC can fire this partner
The forced retirement of PwC Australia partner Richard Gregg hinges on what Justice David Hammerschlag thinks “reasons” means.
As part of the fallout of the PwC tax leaks scandal, the big four consultancy named Mr Gregg, a research and development incentive tax specialist, as one of eight partners who had exited or were in the process of being removed from the firm’s partnership.
PwC partner Richard Gregg and his lawyer Rebekah Giles outside court on Thursday. Peter Rae
The firm’s attempted removal of Mr Gregg from its partnership stems from conduct in 2021, and PwC admits that the attempt to fire him is not related to the misuse of government information revealed in the tax leaks scandal. However, after the scandal exploded, PwC management recommended to the board of partners that Mr Gregg should be forced to retire.
Mr Gregg alleges PwC management did not give enough information, or valid reasons, in its recommendation to the board under requirements in the group’s partnership agreement.
“This is what the case turns on”, Justice Hammerschlag said in the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday. “What are ‘reasons’ within the meaning within [the partnership agreement]?”
As barristers Arthur Moses, SC, and Matthew Darke, SC, offered up their own definitions, Justice Hammerschlag asked, “Has somebody got a Macquarie dictionary meaning of the word?”
Nobody had one, but a junior lawyer was sent to find a dictionary.
PwC has acknowledged that Mr Gregg, who was directed to take leave in May, was not involved in the tax leaks scandal. Mr Gregg’s barrister, Mr Moses, said that despite repeated requests in June, PwC did not outline why it was investigating his client.
Mr Moses said a July 11 letter to Mr Gregg gave reasons, but there were
Read more on afr.com
