Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2024] UKUT 00394 (TCC)

Fecha: 19-Nov-2024

Ground (ii) - unnecessary citation of evidence

Ground (ii) - unnecessary citation of evidence

115.

There is no need for me to say anything about this Ground in this decision. I expressed the view at the hearing that the ASOC was unnecessarily long and detailed. The parties agreed to cooperate so as to ensure that the volume of evidence referred to in the amendments proposed by the Authority does not exceed that which is reasonably required to satisfy the requirements of the Rules or the relevant provisions of FSMA and this is reflected in my directions which are made alongside this decision.

Heading
Introduction
Background to the reference
The reference proceedings to date
The pleadings as currently filed
Mr Staley’s Reply to the Statement of Case
The Potential Witnesses Application
The Evidence in Chief Application
The US Proceedings
US Proceedings documents and Epstein Estate Emails
Mr Staley’s position
Relevant Legal Principles
The Tribunal’s discretion to allow amendments
The proposed amendments
Ground (i) - introduction of new allegations
Ground (ii) - unnecessary citation of evidence
Ground (iii) - correspondence between the Authority and the Applicant’s lawyers – no probative value
Ground (iv) – email correspondence and by imessaging between Mr Epstein and third parties
Ground (v) - no probative value
Ground (vi) – failure to characterise the evidence in an accurate, balanced or objective manner
Ground (vii) – inaccuracies
The Authority’s List of Documents
Conclusions