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

We accept the Authority’s submission that the two statements made in the Letter as to closeness and recency of contact were self-evidently material to its enquiry, as was the Letter as a whole.

It was clear from Mr Davidson’s evidence, that as a result of what Mr Higgins told him on the telephone on 15 August 2019, and what was subsequently written in the Letter, that he did not consider that it was necessary for the Authority to make any further enquiries in relation to Mr Staley’s fitness and propriety. As he said in his cross-examination, he understood from what Mr Higgins described that essentially the relationship was not close and that was based on Mr Higgins’s understanding of what Mr Staley had told him. Mr Davidson said because Mr Higgins gave him to understand that the relationship was not close, there was no need to undertake a further detailed understanding of the relationship.

It follows from that evidence that had Mr Higgins indicated that the relationship was close or had been close, then undoubtedly, as Mr Davidson indicated in his evidence, further steps and additional enquiries would have been undertaken. In those circumstances it is clear that the Statements were highly material to the Authority in its evaluation as to whether any further enquiries into the relationship were necessary.

The Letter stated that there was no close relationship and the date of the last contact was “well before” Mr Staley joined Barclays, as well as there being no impropriety to the relationship. Those statements caused the Authority not to pursue any further enquiries.

Had it known the true position, then in our view the Authority would have explored further whether there were any issues regarding Mr Staley’s fitness and propriety.

We therefore agree with the Authority that it is self-evident that the Statements were significant to the fitness and propriety of Mr Staley and so were material to the Authority.