Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-0000150 - [2024] UKUT 00254 (TCC)

Fecha: 10-Jul-2024

Mr Perry

Mr Perry

58.

The Bundle contained emails and notes written by Mr Duncan Perry, General Counsel of Barclays Wealth at the relevant time, together with copies of recordings he had made and answers he gave in interviews. Mr Winter submitted that the Tribunal should disregard that evidence because:

(1)

Mr Perry had not been called as a witness;

(2)

had he been called, Mr Winter would have wanted to cross-examine him; and

(3)

in Tinney, the Tribunal had refused to admit the same or similar evidence, unless it had been corroborated by Mr Tinney.

59.

Mr Stanley submitted that the evidence was admissible, and in response to Mr Winter’s third point, said there was a difference between Saranac’s Reference and that in Tinney, because the issue in this case was whether the Authority had acted reasonably in deciding Mr Kalaris was not “fit and proper”, whereas in Tinney the Authority had the burden of proving Mr Tinney had acted without integrity.

60.

We agree with Mr Stanley both that this evidence was admissible, and that in Tinney the Authority had the burden of proving that Mr Tinney was not fit and proper, which is not the position in the Saranac Reference.

61.

However, our task is to find the facts on the basis of the evidence, and then to consider, in the light of those facts, whether the Decision was one which was reasonably open to the Authority. Given that Mr Perry had not been tendered as a witness, we decided it would be unfair to place weight on his evidence when making those findings, unless Mr Kalaris had accepted that evidence.