Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 10-Jul-2024

What Mr Kalaris knew

What Mr Kalaris knew

116.

On the basis of the findings already made, we further find that at the time of the 2013 Interview, Mr Kalaris knew that:

(1)

the ASA and the Qataris’ contribution to the capital raising together formed a “package”, see §94;

(2)

the ASA was a “side deal” to fill the “value gap” between the 1.5% commission agreed by the Board in relation to the capital raising, and the 3.5% required by the Qataris, see §87;

(3)

the Qataris would not have participated in the capital raising had Barclays had not met that economic gap, see §97 - §98; and

(4)

the ASA and the capital raising were thus “connected”, see §94.

117.

Mr Stanley submitted that none of the above could “reasonably [have] been forgotten or overlooked” by Mr Kalaris at the time of the 2013 Interview. Mr Winter did not take issue with any of the four particular points set out above, but he nevertheless suggested that Mr Kalaris had been disadvantaged at the time of the 2013 Interview (a) because he had not had access to various items of legally privileged correspondence, and (b) because the events had taken place nearly five years previously.

118.

We agree with Mr Stanley. The facts set out at §116 were key to the transaction which Mr Kalaris was co-ordinating; they are not points of detail which required access to privileged documents. Moreover, Mr Kalaris himself did not give evidence that, at the time of the 2013 Interview, he had forgotten any of those key facts.