An oil executive was yesterday branded a liar for evidence he gave in a multi-million pound tax case taken by Tullow Oil in London.
The chief financial officer of Heritage Oil, Paul Atherton, was described as a “patently dishonest witness” as Tullow closed its legal battle over a £209.5 million tax bill.
He was said to have lied under cross examination, as the court was urged not to accept anything he said unless it was corroborated by another witness. Tullow’s lawyer, David Wolfson QC, said: “He was a patently dishonest witness, and that is not a submission I enjoy making.
“Quite apart from the fact that he took an oath, there really was no need for him to lie about anything.
Tullow is seeking to recover a tax bill it paid in Uganda on behalf of Heritage. It had been suggested during evidence that Tullow executives discussed paying a bung to Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, based on an email sent between Tullow executives.
But Mr Wolfson said the document in question contained “no hint of any suggestion” that a payment would be made to the president.
He said the allegations against the president had caused “serious ongoing issues” in Uganda.
'Irrelevant'
"Heritage's insinuations were irrelevant to the issues that arose in the case," he said.
Tullow has brought the case against Heritage after paying $1.45 billion for a 50 per cent share in three huge Ugandan oil fields back in 2010. The Ugandan government then demanded $313 million from Heritage in capital gains tax on the deal. Tullow said it was then forced to pay Heritage’s disputed tax bill so that it could secure approval on the sales of two 33 per cent interests in the fields in early 2011.
It is suing Heritage for the return of the tax money, claiming the smaller firm should have ultimately footed the bill.
If Tullow can prove it believed the claim from the Ugandan government to be legitimate,it will win the case.
Kwahar Quereshi, representing Heritage, later yesterday accused Tullow of colluding with the Ugandan government in making its tax claim against his client.
“Tullow’s collusion with the Government/URA, in terms of both the time period and scope of the matters involved, was as wide ranging as it could have been.”
He attacked company secretary Alan Graham Martin for destroying key documents in the build up to the case, which may have detailed this collusion.
Documents destroyed
Mr Martin admitted destroying documents during his cross-examination, saying he "got rid of a lot of notes when [he] left Kampala".
He said the notes were crucial in determining whether the company had changed its mind on the validity of the tax claim made against them, as well as providing any evidence of collusion with the Ugandan government.
He claimed Tullow was trying to rely on a draft document of legal advice from a Ugandan lawyer as evidence it believed the tax claim was valid.
