UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000050 - [2025] UKUT 00123 (TCC)

His application clearly states that the evidence the Authority holds will provide the specific facts to show that he was told and, therefore, believed the commissions to be permitted. He cannot see how, at this stage and without that evidence, he can show that the structures put in place were led by advice from Greyfriars/Best International employees and Robert Rogers, Mr Reynolds’ compliance consultant at the time.

Mr Reynolds asks whether the Authority is trying to insinuate that other firms were not advised on P6 by Greyfriars/Best International? Also, he says the Authority are fully aware of what he was told by the employees of these firms as it has been explained at the various meetings and at the RDC in 2022. They have also included this in various bundles they have provided.

P6 application forms were completed in line with guidance from Greyfriars/Best International and this will be evidenced by the documents held by the Authority that Mr Reynolds intends to request. To say the way forms were completed did not meet Greyfriars criteria, but other firms were putting investments in, indicates that the advisers trusted and were led by the employees of Greyfriars/Best International. Mr Reynolds says that the evidence will show that this was what happened.

– (e) The Authority is fully aware of the structure of the suitability report and how it advises clients on their options. Each factfind will specifically outline the clients’ needs and how this is shown in this report. Until Mr Reynolds has that evidence, he cannot refer to it. Corroboration can only occur once the factfind has been compared to the suitability report. Mr Reynolds says that he has not had access to this material since 2018, when Active Wealth went into administration, even though the Authority has.

Mr Reynolds says that the Authority is fully aware of the key features document referred to and have also been made aware that the clawback of fees had been waived in the past.

On obtaining the files from the liquidator, Mr Reynolds says that he will be able to show the processes in each individual case, including that advice was provided by Active Wealth and not directly by the two people referred to by the Authority.

Mr Reynolds says that he does not follow the Authority’s position here. He says that it appears the Authority is saying that they cannot decide whether his answers were honest because they don’t know his case. He says that he can deal with each of the Authority’s examples completely and succinctly in the substantive hearing, including from material already given to the Authority in several interviews and at the RDC meeting.

Mr Reynolds says that the Authority here seems to imply that he is required to explain his case in full within this application. He was under the impression that he was required to outline how he intended to prove his case at the substantive hearing, not lay out the entire case. The Authority has on file his statement regarding communication, to whom, why and what he thought was the outcome. Mr Reynolds suggests that the Authority are not reading their own files.