Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)

Fecha: 22-Ene-2025

Our view

Our view

180.

We begin by reiterating that it is no part of the role of this Tribunal to dissect the reasoning of the FTT in the way suggested. We have already referred to Fage, where Lewison LJ said:

“Appellate courts have been repeatedly warned, by recent cases at the highest level, not to interfere with findings of fact by trial judges, unless compelled to do so. This applies not only to findings of primary fact, but also to the evaluation of those facts and to inferences to be drawn from them.”

181.

Similarly, in Northern Light Solutions Ltd v HMRC [2021] UKUT 0134 (TCC), this Tribunal cautioned at [85]:

“…As the authorities have repeatedly indicated, this Tribunal should be reluctant to interfere with the evaluative judgment of the FTT unless it is clear that the FTT has misdirected itself as to the law, misapplied the law to the facts or has reached a conclusion which is not open to it on the facts found (in accordance with the principles set out in Edwards v Bairstow).”

182.

Ground 4 discloses no error of law in the way the Tribunal carried out its evaluative judgment of the value to be ascribed to the trademark. The FTT set out the evidence, discussed the valuations and carried out a weighing exercise before coming to its conclusion.

183.

We add the following observations:

(1)

Mr Ballard’s evidence about the costs required to replace the trademark was given for the first time in a witness statement dated 21 October 2022, the first day of the FTT hearing,see [10]. The witness statement was thus written over ten years after the Pension Funding Deal had taken place.

(2)

It is part of the role of the first-instance court or tribunal to assess the evidence, and there is no error of law in the FTT declining to accept Mr Ballard’s estimate, particularly given the lapse of time, the absence of corroborating material and the projected business changes.