TC09659 - [2025] UKFTT 01211 (TC)

It is necessary to summarise the evidence in order to try to determine as a fact how SKM came to start trading with BTL.

SF and KG’s evidence was that BTL had been identified by TP. In his witness statement, SF stated that an employee at one of the companies TP had cold called had mentioned BTL as a company he “supposedly dealt with … when the guy worked for another company“. KG referred in his evidence to someone at Ripley having said trading with BTL had been going on “for a while”. In oral evidence, SF and KG both asserted in summary that TP had come across Ripley when cold calling and that when speaking to a member of staff at Ripley, the Ripley employee had explained that he had recently moved from London to Ripley in Surrey and as a result one of his customers, BTL, was no longer able to deliver to Ripley because Ripley‘s yard in Surrey was too far away. TP had accordingly contacted BTL and after 4-6 calls eventually trading with BTL had started.

We found this explanation unconvincing, confusing and contradictory. Although some of the inconsistencies were not raised in cross examination:

SF and KG both gave evidence that SF, KG and TP had made a site visit to Ripley and that during that visit someone at Ripley had confirmed that they had been buying from BTL before BTL had started trading with SKM. Neither KG nor SF could clearly remember when this visit had taken place and we did not have documentary evidence of it. We did not put much weight on this oral evidence which was vague. This is one of the points in relation to which SF asserted that documents held by his former advisers would have provided evidence, but these documents were not before us.

The vagueness and logical contradictions in the evidence meant we were unable to find as a fact how SKM first came into contact with BTL. It seemed most likely this was as a consequence of contact between TP and someone at Ripley, but the evidence for that was weak. Although there was indirect oral evidence that someone at Ripley had introduced BTL to SKM, we did not have sufficient direct evidence to be able to conclude what was involved in that introduction. There was certainly not enough evidence to suggest Ripley had provided a reference for BTL. The details of TP’s alleged call with Ripley and of SF/KG’s alleged visit to Ripley were too vague to provide any conclusive evidence on this issue. This was disputed by Miss Sheldon for SKM but the vagueness of KG/SF’s recollections and the lack of documentary evidence meant we could not find facts on this point.