I understood the JAR qualification (in its present incarnation) is a SEP IR. In other words it is no use in itself for multi operations. Given therefore it is inconceivable that a significant part of the theoretical knowledge is relevant how can its content be justified.
I appreciate it cannot, but at a wider level can a regulatory authority justify setting an exam of irrelevant content. In other words could the Law Society justify requiring theoretical knowledge of Australian law before granting a UK practising certificate.
On challenge I wonder if they could defend their stance - it all sounds a bit dubious to me.