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

On 7 October 2019, there was a phone call between Mr Hoyt and Mr Staley, lasting approximately 5 minutes. There is a dispute over what was said in this call.

Mr Hoyt’s evidence in relation to the call, as set out in his first witness statement, was that he described to Mr Staley the changes which had been made from the previous version of the letter he had seen as not being very significant, because “I did not think that they were.” In particular, he said that he did not regard a change from the “occasional meetings” language to “no close relationship language” a substantive change. We have dealt with why Mr Hoyt was of that view at [411] above.

Mr Hoyt also confirmed in his evidence what he had said in his first interview with the Authority to the effect that Mr Staley had asked about the “no close relationship” language and that they had discussed where this language had come from and whether it was the right language to use. Mr Hoyt’s evidence was that he said that from his perspective, in light of the discussions he had had with Mr Staley from July 2019 onwards regarding the nature of his relationship with Mr Epstein, it seemed to appropriately reflect the position. Mr Hoyt went on to emphasise, however,that he told Mr Staley that it was for Mr Staley to decide for himself if he thought that language was accurate or not. Mr Hoyt’s evidence was thatMr Staley then asked Mr Hoyt what he thought, and he replied that given what Mr Staley had previously described, he did not think it sounded like a close relationship – it was a business-oriented, networking-based relationship, involving sporadic and intermittent contact, especially in recent times. He said that he understood at that time that Mr Staley had had no contact with Mr Epstein since 2015. Mr Hoyt’s evidence was that he explained to Mr Staley that on that basis, the language felt comfortable to him, and Mr Staley confirmed that was fine.

Mr Hoyt’s evidence under cross-examination remained consistent with what is set out at [426] above. He confirmed that during the call he did pass on to Mr Staley what Mr Higgins had told Mr Hoyt about the conversation with Mr Davidson. In re-examination, he was asked why he wanted to ensure that Mr Staley felt the language was fair and accurate. His evidence was that only Mr Staley had knowledge of the facts to ensure the Letter was accurate.

Mr Staley’s recollection of the call is different in a number of respects.

Whilst he said in his first witness statement that he asked Mr Hoyt why the draft now incorporated words to the effect that he had not had a close relationship with Mr Epstein, in his cross-examination he rowed back on that point and said he could not recall asking the question.

Mr Staley also said in his first witness statement, a position which he maintained in cross-examination, that he asked Mr Hoyt “whether the draft was a reflection of everything that I had said over the last number of months about my relationship with Epstein”. Mr Hoyt was asked about this in his cross-examination and said that he did not recall that question being put to him. He said it would have been an odd thing for him to be asked and that he believed he volunteered that the wording reflected what Mr Staley had told him over the past months.

We prefer Mr Hoyt’s evidence on what was said during the call. Mr Staley said in cross-examination that he only “vaguely” remembered the call and some of the answers he gave in his cross-examination were inconsistent with what he has previously said in his first witness statement. The email communications are also consistent with Mr Hoyt’s recollection of the purpose of the call which was to obtain Mr Staley’s confirmation that he was comfortable with the language in the letter, a matter which he would have to decide independently for himself.