UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000044 - [2025] UKUT 00094 (TCC)

This ground gives rise to no material error of law.

As touched on above, the FTT explicitly took into account the relevant passages from the witness statements of Mr Thompson and IC at [10] on the performance of the contracts in practice and considered it at [60] by reference to the “informal working arrangements” as set out above. It made no error of law in this regard.

We also accept that the evidence of the contractual discussions in 2005 is not explicitly referred to anywhere in the decision but do not accept it was material evidence. We do not accept it was “highly relevant” to the determination of the terms of hypothetical contracts entered into in 2013 and 2015.

The purported discussion on a plane in 2005 could not realistically be taken as the basis of the 2013 and 2015 agreements. Even if it were admissible evidence on the hypothetical contracts, about which there is room for doubt, it would carry almost no weight. There was no evidence as to what written terms were agreed between Sky and Mr Thompson directly between 2005 and 2013 and whether they qualified that discussion. The FTT did not have evidence of the contracts entered into between Mr Thompson personally and Sky between 2005 and 2013. There was no evidence as to whether the terms were varied over the years.

The FTT’s findings of what did happen in performing the actual contracts between 2013 and 2017 directly contradicted Mr Thompson being able to “do what he wanted” and “pick his shows”. If that is what happened in 2005, it is not what happened during the relevant period. There was no evidence that there was any such agreement between Sky and the Appellant or Mr Thompson when entering the 2013 and 2015 contracts.

Thus, there was no material error of law in the FTT not referring to or even taking into account the evidence from 2005.