
18
GRIT INVESTMENT TRUST PLC
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
In relation to the company’s reporting on how it has applied the UK Corporate Governance Code, we have nothing
material to add or draw attention to in relation to:
the directors’ statement in the financial statements about whether the directors considered it appropriate
to adopt the going concern basis of accounting; and
the directors' identification in the financial statements of the material uncertainty related to the entity’s
ability to continue as a going concern over a period of at least twelve months from the date of approval
of the financial statements.
Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the directors with respect to going concern are described in the
relevant sections of this report.
Our application of materiality
Materiality for the financial statements as a whole was set at £22,000 (2021: £5,100) determined with reference
to an average of benchmarks of 7% of net assets and 3% of adjusted loss before tax
(2021: 1.5% of expenses).
As the company is an investment trust, net assets are used to fund the directors investment strategy and the
adjusted loss before tax benchmark creates a leaner investment vehicle for recapitalisation, with the loss in the
year impacting the company’s ability to do so. As such, we consider these two benchmarks as the most
appropriate benchmarks. The percentages applied to these benchmarks have been selected to bring into scope
all significant classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures relevant for the shareholders, and also
to ensure that matters that would have a significant impact on the results were appropriately considered.
We use performance materiality to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of
uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds overall materiality. Specifically, 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. Performance materiality was
set at £17,600 (2021: £3,570) being 80% (2021: 70%) of the materiality for the financial statements as a whole.
In determining performance materiality, we considered the number and quantum of identified misstatements in
the prior year audit, management’s attitude to correcting misstatements identified and our cumulative knowledge
of the company and their environment.
We agreed to report to the directors any corrected or uncorrected identified misstatements exceeding £1,100
(2021: £255), as well as misstatements below those amounts that, in our view, warranted reporting for qualitative
reasons.
Our approach to the audit
In designing our audit, we determined materiality as above and assessed the risk of material misstatement in the
financial statements. In particular, we tailored the scope of our audit to ensure that we performed sufficient audit
work to be able to give an opinion on the financial statement as a whole, taking into account the cash shell nature
of the company. We looked at areas involving significant accounting estimates and judgement by the directors
such as the valuation of investments. We considered, as part of our work on going concern, future events that
are inherently uncertain. We also addressed the risk of management override of internal controls, including
evaluating whether there was evidence of bias by management that represented a risk of material misstatement
due to fraud. Our audit was performed from our London office with regular contact with management and the
directors throughout the audit.
This, in conjunction with additional supplementary procedures performed, gave us appropriate evidence for our
opinion on the company financial statements.
Key audit matters
Except for the matter described in the ‘Material uncertainty related to going concern’ section, we have determined
that there are no other key audit matters to communicate in our report.