AUTH/2523/7/12 - Anonymous v Teva

Venue for a meeting

  • Received
    06 July 2012
  • Case number
    AUTH/2523/7/12
  • Applicable Code year
    2012
  • Completed
    01 August 2012
  • No breach Clause(s)
    19.1
  • Additional sanctions
  • Appeal
    No appeal
  • Review
    November 2012

Case Summary

​An anonymous, non-contactable complainant complained about a VAT management in practice meeting at a golf and country club where customers could enjoy a 'well maintained 9-hole golf course'. The meeting was sponsored by, inter alia, Teva.

The complainant alleged that this venue was in breach of the Code.

The detailed response from Teva is given below.

The Panel noted that the complainant was anonymous and non contactable. The complainant had the burden of proving their complaint on the balance of probabilities. The Code required that meetings be held at appropriate venues conducive to the main purpose of the event: lavish, extravagant or deluxe venues must not be used, companies must not sponsor or organize entertainment (such as sporting or leisure events) and companies should avoid using venues that were renowned for their entertainment facilities. The impression created by the arrangements must be borne in mind.

The Panel noted Teva's submission that delegates had no access to the golf course. The Panel considered that companies had to be mindful of the impression created by all of the arrangements for a meeting including the venue. A venue which described itself as a country club would have to be carefully checked to ensure that its facilities were appropriate bearing in mind the intended delegates, the nature of the meeting and the venue's reputation both locally and nationally. Teva had submitted that the venue in question was in no way renown for its entertainment facilities. There was no mention of the golf course on the meeting invitations. The Panel considered it would have been preferable if a venue without a small attached golf course had been chosen as such a facility might enhance the local profile of the venue. However on the particular circumstances of this case the Panel considered that the complainant had not established on the balance of probabilities that the venue was inappropriate in relation to the requirements of the Code and no breach was ruled accordingly.