Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 10-Jul-2024

The pre-meeting communications

The pre-meeting communications

189.

On Friday 30 March 2012 at 8.22am, Ms Griffiths, Mr Tinney’s Chief of Staff, emailed Ms Hogan, a secretary within Barclays saying:

“Tom B[iesinger] is going to send the Culture report direct to Andrew [Tinney]’s house today so he has it over the weekend direct from him.”

190.

At 11.39am, Mr Biesinger emailed Ms Griffiths, with copies to Ms Hogan and Mr Tinney, saying “I suspect you want this to go to TK [Mr Kalaris] at the same time? If so, can we have his NY details so we can arrange courier?”

191.

Ms Griffiths replied at 12.20, saying:

“I thought you were sending to AT and bringing in hard copy Monday for both. (TK is travelling this weekend – Boston today, then NY, then London Monday morning). If you wish, perhaps you send a copy here for his attention and he can look through early Monday morning when he flies in.”

192.

On Friday 30 March 2012 at 12.36pm, Mr Biesinger emailed Ms Griffiths, attaching the earlier emails from Ms Hogan, and saying:

“Rachel stated TK would be in NY, see below. Is this the case or not. That’s why I was suggesting Courier to NY. Whatever the case I was wanting to ensure TK felt he also had an opportunity to see prior to meet.”

193.

There was then a sequence of emails the same day:

(1)

Ms Griffiths emailed Ms Hogan at 1.32pm, saying “Rachel – please can you send Tom B the address to send report to TK”.

(2)

Ms Hogan emailed Ms Hannah Barry, Mr Kalaris’s personal assistant, at 1.35pm, saying “Tom and Ross would like to courier some papers to Tom at the weekend, will he be at his home address? Please can you send the full address if okay”.

(3)

Ms Barry replied at 1.39pm, saying “could we possibly send to the office address in 200 Park Avenue – he should get them first thing Monday morning”, giving that address and them saying “alternatively you can send them to me this afternoon and I will arrange for them to be printed out”.

(4)

At 1.52pm Mr Tinney emailed Ms Hogan and Ms Griffiths, saying “relaxed about TK, have told him we will catch him up when he is back in London, which I think is Tuesday.”

(5)

Ms Griffiths emailed Ms Barry and Ms Hogan at 2.03pm, saying “per earlier email, we’ll have the meeting in London so per discussion with AT no need to send to NY”.

194.

We find as a fact on the basis of these emails that the existence of the GenVen Report was known to Ms Griffiths, Ms Hogan and Mr Tinney, as well as of course to Mr Biesinger and Mr Wall of GenVen, and that Ms Barry, Ms Kalaris’s personal assistant, knew GenVen had “some papers” to send to Mr Kalaris.

195.

Under cross-examination, Mr Kalaris denied knowing about any of those communications; he also denied knowing that the GenVen Report was originally going to be sent to him at an address in the USA. Mr Stanley did not challenge that evidence and we have accepted it.