![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2024] UKUT 00394 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2024] UKUT 00394 (TCC)
Fecha: 19-Nov-2024
Heading
UT (Tax & Chancery) Case Number: UT-2023-000064
Hearing venue: The Rolls Building, London
Judgment date: 3 December 2024
FINANCIAL SERVICES – procedure – whether Tribunal should direct evidence from further witnesses- whether Applicant should be permitted to give evidence in chief orally- whether Authority should have permission to amend its Statement of Case- whether Authority should be directed to disclose further documents
Before
JUDGE TIMOTHY HERRINGTON
(Sitting in Retirement)
Between
JAMES EDWARD STALEY
Applicant
-and-
THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY
Respondent
Representation:
For the Applicant: Robert Smith KC and Nichola Higgins, Counsel, instructed by Arnold & Porter LLP
For the Respondent: Leigh-Ann Mulcahy KC, Eleanor Davison and Lara Hassell-Hart, Counsel, instructed by the Financial Conduct Authority
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