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

Mr Kalaris said in his witness statement that his reply to Q2 was “entirely accurate” and that:

“whilst the ASA also allowed Barclays to bridge the ‘value gap’ between the fees the Qataris wanted to be paid for their participation in the June Capital Raise compared to what Barclays would pay them, the purpose of the ASA was a commercial standalone arrangement for the provision of advisory services and for securing the long term strategic relationship with the Qataris.”

Mr Kalaris also said he had understood the Authority to be investigating “whether the ASA was a ‘sham’ agreement and a device in order to conceal fees paid to the Qataris” and therefore “felt it was important to convey [his] understanding that the ASA was not a ‘sham’ or an illegal device”.

In closing submissions, Mr Winter referred to Mr Beauchamp’s follow-up questions, which were:

“would you have regarded the agreement as fit for purpose, I mean if that was the purpose does this fit that purpose?” and “so this [agreement] would be followed up with substantive work to take it forward?”

Mr Winter submitted that these further questions show that in Q2 the Authority was “not interested” in whether the ASA had another purpose, but only on whether it delivered value to Barclays in exchange for the £42m paid to the Qataris.