A PwC partner being forced to retire “without explanation or prior notice” following a tax leaks scandal has taken the consultancy giant to court.

Richard Gregg has worked at PwC as specialist partner since 2013 in a team separate from the firm’s tax and legal practice since 2016.

But on May 28, he was directed to go on special leave by then-acting CEO Kristin Stubbins, before the firm announced it was “exiting” eight partners, including Gregg, for what it described as “professional or governance breaches”.

The plaintiff’s legal team, headed by high-profile barrister Arthur Moses, said his client had not been provided an explanation or prior notice.

While he eventually received a letter from the board of partners which claimed he had breached his partnership agreement and recommended his forced retirement, Mr Moses argued the firm had not provided adequate justification.

“People just throw allegations around and seize upon it … (because) it may just be convenient to get rid of scandal,” Mr Moses told the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday.

“Specific conduct of the plaintiff … has not been disclosed and we’re at a loss to know what this is about and how that could justify such a conclusion.

“(This) has deprived the plaintiff of a real, rather than an illusory, opportunity to make submissions to the defendant.”

However the firm, represented by Matthew Darke, said Gregg had received a letter which stated he had failed to adequately discharge his leadership roles and responsibilities, which resulted in a $100,000 fine, and acted in a way that damaged PwC’s reputation.

“(The plaintiff) requires no more than a statement made by management in good faith for the reasons it genuinely holds for the recommendation,” he said.

“No particular detail need apply.”

Gregg had also been given an opportunity to respond to the letter, Mr Darke argued.

But Justice Hammer disputed the claim and said the partner wouldn’t be in court if the firm had given ample opportunity to make his own submission.

“He’s doing it here right now,” he said.

“The board must not retire him unless he has committed (misconduct). Not because they think he has. They need a finding effect.

“He’s got to get a fair go.”

However Mr Darke said the issue was not about providing procedural fairness.

“The plaintiff contends that it is all about providing procedural procedural fairness to the partner when in fact it is part of a broader process, the primary purpose of which is to protect the firm and its reputation from the conduct.”

PwC has sacked 12 individuals since it was accused of abusing its trusted role as an adviser when staff leaked information about proposed federal government tax changes to clients.

– AAP