![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)
Fecha: 22-Ene-2025
The FTT’s findings about all three transactions
The FTT’s findings about all three transactions
In relation to all three Pension Funding Deals, the FTT found as facts [204] that MLT was content to:
rely unquestioningly on the advice of others;
raise questions only about “obvious” administrative errors in critical documents;
sign off documents which were incomplete with a short turnaround time; and
have no one in the sign off chain who considered it their role to apply commercial acumen and consider the real risks in a transaction.
MLT did not seek or obtain permission to appeal on the basis that any of those findings of fact constituted an error of law, so they are not under challenge before us.
- 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