Case No. UKUT-00320-(AAC)

33.Mr Clarke attended before us to represent the appellant company. It is a quirk of this jurisdiction that, ordinarily, an appellant does not have a live opponent at the hearing of an appeal such as this. But, of course, that does not mean an appellant or the representative for an appellant, has any increased expectation that submissions or arguments advanced to the Upper Tribunal will be accepted.34.Mr Clarke provided a helpful skeleton argument. As had been intimated in previous directions and/or comments of the Upper Tribunal, such was appropriate given the somewhat sparse nature of the original grounds of appeal. The skeleton argument built upon those grounds.35.Essentially, it seemed to us, in putting together what was said in oral argument and what was said in the skeleton argument, that there were, essentially, three ways in which it was said that the TC had erred. The first of those (we shall call ground 1) amounted to a contention that there had been unfairness in the proceedings. That argument rested on a number of contentions being an alleged failure to set out the nature, substance, or breadth of the TC’s concerns prior to the PI; a failure to otherwise give a proper opportunity for those concerns to be met; an inappropriate disapproval of the REL Groups business model; and an element of pre-judgement as indicated in the PI transcript. The second contention (which we shall call ground 2) amounted to a contention that, quite simply, the TC had made incorrect findings of fact with respect to aspects of the previous business activities of Mr Lewis and in particular we think, Mr Scott. The third contention (which we shall call ground 3) amounted to a contention that the TC had erred in law in seeking to pierce the corporate veil with respect to the appellant company, when considering the matter of its repute.36.At the hearing Mr Clarke pursued all of the above arguments. The material which had been provided prior to the PI had been insufficient to warn the appellant company and Mr Lewis and Mr Scott as to what was within his contemplation. The remarks the TC had made, as evidenced by the PI transcript, suggested a degree of pre-judgement based upon personal distaste for a particular business model. But there was nothing illegal or immoral about the relevant business practices. The TC had made incorrect findings regarding the various companies with which Mr Lewis and in particular Mr Scott had had involvement with, and such was shown to be the case by the new evidence. The application for a licence had been made by a company and it was not open to the TC to pierce the corporate veil in order to consider the conduct or repute of Mr Scott and Mr Lewis.