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

Question 1 (“Q1”) came after Mr Beauchamp had taken Mr Kalaris to the emails listed at §115, and to the text of the ASA. Mr Beauchamp then asked “so what was your understanding as to the genesis of the agreement?”, to which Mr Kalaris replied:

“I don’t believe I have any understanding or knowledge of what the genesis was, nothing. Sorry let me rephrase that, if you take the continuum of the discussions over a period of a month about we’re going down two paths, one path is the capital raising and the other path is the strategic relationship. Now the capital raising dominated it, dominated the dialogue and maybe it’s 95% of it in the last 5% as a strategic relationship at the time perhaps, in terms of thinking, because the capital raising was more immediate, the strategic
relationship was more strategic. But fundamentally we were delighted, now I was delighted that we had a strategic relationship with the Qataris and were
moving to that because I felt that, as I said earlier I felt that our presence in
the Middle East was third rate. Our sponsorship from the Qataris, advice and
first call in a way, was a tremendous advantage to have so I would have looked at, looked at this as a win for us that, this strategic relationship.”

That exchange was followed by this question and answer:

“Mr Beauchamp: But you don’t, is this right, you don’t know the genesis of it, how it originated beyond the general time line?

Mr Kalaris: No. We knew we won’t have [wanted?] a strategic relationship. I don’t know who put this first draft together frankly, I don’t know whether it was Roger or whether it was John’s office or whether it was the Qataris. A draft was shared with me and I don’t know the author…”