![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)
Fecha: 22-Ene-2025
Discussion
Discussion
The issue the FTT had to decide was whether MLT “reasonably believed” that an unauthorised payment had been made to Criticall. The issue was not whether the valuation itself was objectively reasonable. In deciding whether MLT had the necessary reasonable belief, the FTT took into account the fact that MLT had appointed Dr Asher an experienced IP valuer, but also considered the process carried out by MLT.
The FTT gave more weight to:
the process failures and MLT’s acceptance of the value provided without carrying out any sort of common sense review, than to
the appointment of Dr Asher and the fact that, had MLT carried out that check, there would have been no basis to question or challenge the valuation.
Mr Simpson considers that the FTT should have weighted the factors differently. However, this was an evaluative judgment involving “a combination of features of varying importance” to which the FTT applied the “not altogether precise legal standard” set out in s 268(7)(a), see Rockwater cited earlier in this decision. The FTT’s conclusion is within the range of reasonable conclusions and is not one with which this Tribunal should interfere. There is no error of law.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The appeal grounds
- The Pension Funding Deals and the Employers
- The Legislation
- Payments by registered pension schemes
- Employer loans
- Scheme administration employer payments
- Charges
- Applications for discharge
- Factual background
- MLT and its associated companies
- The Pension Funding Deals generally
- The period up to 2011
- Prisym
- The Formwise Pension Funding Deal
- Langford
- The HMRC meetings
- Fraser
- Ballards
- The credit committee
- Criticall
- Gannon
- Overall approach to documentation
- Lack of challenge to the valuations
- The assessments
- The FTT Decision and the Grounds
- Ground 1: Domain names and websites
- The background
- Formwise
- The Formwise Contract
- The FTT Decision
- Mr Simpson’s submission relating to Mr Morris’ evidence
- Construction of the Formwise contract
- Conclusion
- The Langford Contract
- The evidence and findings of fact
- Construction of the Langford Contract
- Conclusion
- Submissions and our conclusions
- Overall conclusion on Ground 1
- Ground 2: Ballards loan
- The FTT’s approach and the finding
- Edwards v Bairstow challenge
- The other submission
- Ground 3: Gannon database
- Discussion
- Ground 4: Ballards trademark
- The first part of this Ground
- The second part of this Ground
- Our view
- Ground 5: time limits
- The assessment provisions
- The discharge provisions
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- The Tribunal’s view
- Ground 6: Sending of applications
- Ground 7: Reasonable belief
- The statutory test
- The FTT’s assessment of the reasonable person
- A value judgment
- The FTT’s findings about all three transactions
- MLT’s case
- Ballards
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- Criticall
- The FTT Decision
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- Discussion
- Gannon
- Overall
- Ground 8: Just and Reasonable
- The statutory scheme
- The FTT’s Decision
- Mr Simpson’s submissions
- Conclusions