Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 10-Jul-2024

The Tribunal’s view

The Tribunal’s view

23.

Having considered the documents summarised above and the submissions made by Mr Winter and Mr Stanley, we decided it was in the interests of justice to continue the proceedings and hear the Saranac Reference. This was for the following reasons:

(1)

Each party was aware of the case being put by the other parties.

(2)

No application had been made by any party before the beginning of this hearing for the Saranac Reference to be joined to the Barclays References.

(3)

Both Saranac and Barclays had objected to joinder.

(4)

FSMA s 133 set out at §32 below provides that once a reference has been made, it “must” be determined by the Tribunal.

(5)

As set out in the email from CMS summarised at §13 above, there are many differences between the Saranac Reference and the Barclays References. Nevertheless, some findings of fact which are required to determine Saranac’s Reference are likely also to be relevant to the Barclays References. It may well be that those findings are uncontroversial, as Mr Winter said would be the position. However, we could not determine whether he was correct, because we had only the redacted copies of the Barclays Statement of Case and their Reply, and no related submissions.

24.

We advised those present that we would proceed, and would make the findings necessary to decide the Saranac Reference, whether or not there was a risk of overlap with the Barclays References.