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

As is well established in references of this kind, the burden of proving that Mr Staley failed to comply with his regulatory obligations to the required standard rests with the Authority judged to the ordinary civil standard: see Tariq Carrimjee v Financial Conduct Authority [2015] UKUT 79 (TCC), 20 at [47]. In Ford and Owen v FCA [2018] UKUT 0358 (TCC) at [42], the Tribunal observed:

“It is nonetheless the case that regard must be had to the quality of the evidence. As the Court said in In re S-B, if an event is inherently improbable, it may take better quality evidence to persuade a court or tribunal that it has happened than would be required if the event were commonplace. There is, however, as Lord Hoffman in In re B had pointed out, at [15], no necessary connection between seriousness and inherent probability.”

We are asked to make findings of fact as to events which took place many years ago, some of which are not well documented. The documentary evidence that we have seen largely takes the form of email correspondence. We cannot know what actually happened in relation to all the events concerned. The burden is on the Authority to satisfy us as to what was more likely than not to have happened on the basis of the evidence before us.