“Mrs K1 also submits that it was not reasonable or fair for the tribunal to have accepted the income figures given by Mr K in the light of his acknowledged failure to provide evidence in accordance with the tribunal’s directions. As the tribunal observed at paragraph 36, on the limited documentation provided it was not possible to establish certain key facts. Moreover, Mr K had redacted large parts of his bank statements showing, Mrs K submitted, only those income figures which were consistent with his evidence. It was not possible to tell whether other income was received during the period but, as Mrs K pointed out, it seems from the figures that can be seen on page 53 for the period 14 to 23 April inclusive that other sums of money must have been received during that period. It seems to me that there is some substance in this too and that it was arguably not reasonable for the tribunal to have relied on the largely redacted bank statements.”
“This was a probably unnecessarily complex case made more so by Mr K’s unwillingness to provide even basic and innocuous details of his work with [the company]. This unwillingness made it all the more difficult to understand what was going on in the relevant period. There is some force in Mrs K’s arguments that Mr K has not properly explained his financial and work position and that he did not comply with the disclosure directions.”
“Mr K did not comply with the Directions given and did not really come up with any explanation as to why this was the case…. the disclosure does not meet the Directions given and no satisfactory explanation was offered by Mr K. Wage slips, tax returns and bank statements would have given much greater evidential certainty.”
“[Mrs K] is right to say that we have not had full disclosure but that does not mean that the calculation is wrong. Mr K has not given anything like his full records but to allow this appeal I must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that his income was more than£401.50 .”