It is good that this has been delivered because now the battle lines are drawn.
EITHER: public accountants/Chartered Accountants are bound by public duties
OR: they are not
The first has applied since 1880.
The second involves throwing out the whole way society and the courts have functioned since 1880.
A public accountant/Chartered Accountant must see the end to end transaction, be able to critically appraise LRA receivers and fully analyse the basis on which the lender thought it could "pull".
The question is not whether at a late stage the claimant had the chance to make representations. The question is WHO has duty to look at the whole of the transaction, conclude on the "pulling" and decide whether the claimant could get proper remedy, reparation and restitution UNLESS they filed in the court.
It is a very serious matter that the Administrative Court does not believe that a compensation scheme can be an effective surrogate for going to court without a pivotal role for an independent person with public duty because of who they are, not who they were hired by. It means that redress schemes and skilled persons are both wholly redundant and a diversion of effort.