UT/2023/000084 - [2024] UKUT 00382 (TCC)

For the sake of completeness we also considered whether the combination of any error under Grounds 2 and 4 would, taken together, be material to the Decision, but we do not consider that they were. Even if we were to correct the reverse charge evidence error, and factor back in Mr Griffith’s evidence (as far as it went), we are confident the FTT’s finding that Mr Orton was neither credible nor reliable was one it would still reach, in view of the other inconsistencies identified and relied on in the judgment.

In its notice of appeal Beigebell had also sought to challenge a number of other points of fact in the FTT Decision, but these were not mentioned in Mr Brown’s skeleton argument. He confirmed at the hearing that he was not pursuing those points, and we have therefore not addressed them.

Mr Brown’s skeleton also included a challenge to the FTT’s conclusion at [231] that the channel model explanation was irrelevant, but this point too was not pursued at the hearing and have not considered it.