Conclusion
Conclusion
I agree with Mr Brinsmead–Stockham that the transaction effected by the Agreements did not mean that CPW ceased to be the owner of the Goodwill or the Businesses. On the contrary, for the reasons which I have set out in some detail in relation to Issue Three, when the facts are viewed realistically, it was not intended that CPW would surrender its rights in the Goodwill or lose its ability to benefit from the future profits of the Businesses in any way. Instead, the intention of the parties was that CPW would continue to own the Goodwill and carry on the Businesses on its own account and that it would simply be obliged to pay to BBUK amounts equal to a fixed percentage of the future gross revenues of the Businesses.
On that analysis, after the Agreements became effective, CPW continued to be entitled to the profits of the Businesses (subject to its obligation to make the payments to BBUK mentioned above) and remained free to dispose of the Goodwill and the Businesses as it chose, including to BBUK. The fact that it was required to pay to BBUK amounts equal to a fixed percentage of the future gross revenues of the Businesses did not preclude it from turning to account either the Goodwill or the Businesses or, for that matter, any asset of the Businesses other than the Goodwill.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Key parties
- Acquisition of the Businesses
- The SPA and the MSA
- The Degrouping
- Procedural background
- the agreed issues
- the agreements
- The SPA
- The MSA
- The Side Letter
- Initial observations on the Agreements and the Side Letter
- other documents
- The Prior SPAs
- The Property Services Agreement
- The Brand Licence
- The Accounts
- The Invoice
- “ About the matter we have finished checking
- “Partial closure notice (PCN)
- The issues – a summary
- Issue One – applicability of the authorities in relation to statutory construction
- Conclusion
- “15 In the task of ascertaining whether a particular statutory provision imposes a charge, or grants an exemption from a charge, the Ramsay approach is generally described – as it is in the statements
- Issue Two – the scope of the rule prohibiting assignment “in gross”
- Conclusion
- Issue Three – ownership of the Businesses following the execution of the Agreements
- Conclusion
- No provision in the Agreements for the transfer of the Businesses
- No provision in the Agreements for the transfer of assets other than Goodwill or the assumption of any liabilities
- No transfer of employees
- Did BBUK carry on the Businesses after the Agreements became effective?
- This meant that the only way that BBUK could carry on the Businesses was through CPW as its agent. In that regard, I do not doubt the fact that it is possible for a company to carry on a business thro
- Entitlement to the profits of the Businesses
- Conclusion in relation to the ability to dictate the overall strategy and direction of the Businesses and entitlement to the profits of the Businesses
- Final observations
- Conclusion
- Issue Four – assignment in equity
- Conclusion
- Issue Five – not the same asset
- Conclusion
- Issue Six – the relevance of the transaction effected by Agreements in the event that Section 179(3) applied
- Conclusion
- Issue Seven – the tax consequences of the transaction effected by Agreements in the event that Section 179(3) applied
- Conclusions
![TC09562 - [2025] UKFTT 00762 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)