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

We agree with the Authority that although Mr Kalaris’s response was true – he did not know the detail as to how the exact sum paid had been calculated – it nevertheless lacked candour, because he failed to say that it was designed to fill the value gap.

Mr Kalaris’s subsequent description as to how Barclays would normally go about calculating the value to be paid under advisory agreements was, as Mr Stanley said, a smokescreen and a distraction: he knew perfectly well that the fee payable under the ASA had not been calculated in that manner.

We again reject Mr Winter’s submission that Mr Kalaris’s answer to Q3 should be read in the light of Mr Beauchamp’s subsequent questions. Those questions followed Mr Kalaris’s answers and picked up on the points he had made; they do not retrospectively justify Mr Kalaris’s reply to Q3.