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

The enquiry by the Authority arose as a result of Mr Steward sending Mr Davidson two articles which appeared in the press in July and August 2019 under cover of an email dated 9 August 2019.

Those two articles, entitled “JPMorgan Kept Jeffrey Epstein as a Client Despite Internal Warnings”and“Jeffrey Epstein’s Deep Ties to Top Wall StreetFigures”included allegations which publicly called into question the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein.

Mr Davidson’s evidence, which we accept, was that he did not believe that matters raised in the press are always facts, which is why he decided that the appropriate response was to see what Barclays had done to ensure that their chief executive was fit and proper, in the light of the fact that media interest in the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein appeared to have intensified. We agree with the Authority that the fact it may have had knowledge of press reporting and therefore perhaps some prior awareness of the concerns raised by journalists about the relationship between Mr Staley and Mr Epstein did not obviate the need for the Authority to make its own enquiry and to obtain factually accurate information directly from the regulated firm and individual.

Mr Bailey and Mr Davidson spoke prior to the enquiry being made. Mr Bailey was then Chief Executive Officer of the Authority. Mr Davidson confirmed that, as result of those discussions, a decision was made between him and Mr Bailey that in the first instance it would be appropriate for him to contact Mr Higgins by telephone.

Mr Bailey’s evidence as to why the Authority decided to approach Mr Higgins was:

“The reason that the original request in August went to Mr Higgins was because he is and was the chair of the board of Barclays. It was the responsibility of Barclays, in our view, to ensure that they had taken into consideration the implications of the information that was coming to light for Mr Staley's position as chief executive and his responsibilities under the senior managers regime, and that is a responsibility that sits with the firm in the first and foremost instance.”

On 14 August 2019, Ms Collins-Firth, at the request of Mr Davidson on behalf of the Authority, contacted Barclays by telephone seeking to speak urgently to Mr Higgins. On 15 August 2019, Mr Higgins, who was on a walking holiday in Romania at the time and appreciated that the matter was urgent, returned Mr Davidson’s call.

There is a conflict of evidence between what Mr Higgins says he understood to be the scope of the enquiry from the call and what Mr Davidson said he was asking Barclays to confirm. Our task in resolving that dispute has not been made easy due to a lack of a proper and adequate note of the conversation and the failure on the part of the Authority to follow up with a clear statement in writing of what it was expecting. We return to that issue later.

It is clear from the evidence that the call was a comparatively short one. The telephone records show that it lasted for 6 minutes and 53 seconds and some of that time would have been taken up by Mr Davidson being put through to Mr Higgins via the former’s assistant, Ms Collins-Firth.