Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000064 - [2025] UKUT 00203 (TCC)

Fecha: 03-Abr-2025

Context

Context

59.

We accept, as Mr Smith submitted, that in considering the issues which arise on this reference, it is necessary to focus upon the context in which Mr Staley’s approval of the Statements took place. Accordingly, in considering the issues we will take into account the following matters, as relied on by Mr Smith:

(1)

The terms of the enquiry which the Authority made of Mr Higgins, the Group Chairman of Barclays, during the telephone conversation of the 15 August 2019.

(2)

The terms of the enquiry which Mr Higgins, Mr Hoyt, the General Counsel of Barclays, and Mr Staley believed was made of Mr Higgins during the telephone call of the 15 August 2019.

(3)

The extent to which Barclays’ understanding of the terms of the Authority’s enquiry operated to shape the draft of Barclays’ response.

(4)

The extent to which Mr Staley’s understanding of the terms of the Authority’s enquiry of the 15 August and his belief as to the purpose of Barclays’ response to the enquiry, influenced his decision to approve the draft.

60.

Mr Smith submits that the Tribunal’s findings of fact in respect of these four issues will answer the central point in these proceedings, namely, whether the Authority has proved that, in approving the draft, Mr Staley was aware that the facts stated therein were inaccurate and that they were capable of misleading the Authority.