UT/2024/000002 - [2025] UKUT 00188 (TCC)

CBNA, in its grounds of appeal, challenged the FTT’s conclusion that the services it provided to SPLC were merely technical or administrative in nature. It argued that such a characterisation was not open to the FTT on the basis of the evidence before it, invoking the principle in Edwards v Bairstow that a finding unsupported by evidence or based on a misunderstanding of the evidence may be set aside.

The Tribunal does not accept this submission. At [311] of its decision, the FTT concluded that the services in question were administrative and technical. That conclusion was plainly open to it on the evidence. While the modelling and infrastructure relied upon by CBNA may have been complex and operationally significant, it was nonetheless reasonable for the FTT to describe such services as technical. The Tribunal notes that CBNA’s reliance on certain factual findings to support its position has already been addressed above, and those findings do not, contrary to CBNA’s case, demonstrate that CBNA’s services effected a change in the legal and financial position.

CBNA also took issue with the FTT’s finding at [174] that the SPLC trader set the price quoted and determined the actual price, to the extent that this was intended to apply to all cash transactions. However, the Tribunal considers this point immaterial. As previously explained, the determination of price, even if carried out by CBNA or facilitated through its infrastructure, is not sufficient in itself to bring the service within the scope of the exemption. The legal test requires a change in the legal relationship between the parties, not merely involvement in price setting.

Accordingly, the Tribunal finds no error of law in the FTT’s reasoning or conclusions on this point. The findings challenged by CBNA were supported by the evidence and were properly open to the FTT to make. The appeal on this ground is therefore dismissed.