[2025] EWHC 2294 (Ch)

Mr Botting

Mr Botting and the Respondent had not worked together since 2020.

Again, in Mr Botting’s written evidence, there was an (entirely understandable) conflating of the timeline in certain respects. My observations in relation to the Respondent’s written evidence in this regard apply mutatis mutandis to that of Mr Botting.

Overall, I am satisfied that Mr Botting’s written evidence was prepared honestly, to the best of his knowledge and recollection of material events.

In oral testimony, Mr Botting was an entirely straightforward witness. In closing, Mr Arumugam accepted that Mr Botting had given his evidence in a straightforward manner and that he had tried his best to assist the court. Mr Botting admitted that he had no actual recollection of what was said at the meeting on 20 December 2018 and was dependent on his notes of the meeting. He also readily accepted that the notes of themselves did not evidence definitive advice being given one way or the other on the issue of whether to put in place the salary/loan swap arrangement.

As with the Respondent, Mr Botting was subjected in cross examination to granular questioning regarding the terms of the engagement letters. He was also subjected to aggressive lines of questioning which formed no part of the s 238/239 case being brought. These included questions put that the Company had ‘evaded’ PAYE/NIC, that the salary/loan swap arrangement was ‘just a tax fiddle’ or a ‘form of disguised remuneration’; allegations which Mr Botting firmly but patiently refuted, explaining that PAYE/NIC are payable on salary and that no salary was being drawn. Notwithstanding these unheralded attacks, Mr Botting listened keenly and politely to questions put to him and took care to answer the questions put. I have every confidence in the honesty of his testimony.