[2025] EWHC 2759 (Ch)

This is the judgment on a re-trial of the liability stage of the claim against the Second Defendant, Bashir Timol, for alleged misuse of information relating to the creation of a possible tax mitigation scheme by the Claimant, Kieran Corrigan & Co Ltd. The alleged misuse comprises principally the signing-off of the development, implementation and marketing of a structure known as the Nemaura structure using the Claimant’s confidential information, coupled with the sharing of such confidential information in other ways.

In my 23 March 2023 judgment (the “2023 Judgment”) [2023] EWHC 649 (Ch), [2024] F.S.R. 1, I upheld against the First, Third and Fourth Defendants the claims for breach of confidence, joint liability for breach of confidenceand unlawful means conspiracy, and (in the case) of the Third Defendant Mr Slattery procuring a breach of contract. However, I dismissed these claims against Mr Timol, at root because I considered that he had signed off the structure without appreciating the tax elements of its contents: [279]-[283], [289] and [306]. There was very limited documentary evidence before me indeed at that stage as to Mr Timol’s role during the relevant period.

In his 16 August 2024 judgment on the quantum phase (the “Quantum Judgment”), HHJ Cadwallader awarded damages of £3.48m against the First, Third and Fourth Defendants: [2024] EWHC 2146, [2025] F.S.R. 5.

Following the disclosure of further documents by the Fourth Defendant during the course of the quantum stage of proceedings, the Claimant appealed against the dismissal of the claim against Mr Timol. In its 18 October 2024 judgment ([2024] EWCA Civ 1233, [2025] F.S.R. 6) (the “Court of Appeal Judgment”), the Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground of appeal, which contended that I had made an error of law in reaching my decision to dismiss the breach of confidence claim ([57]-[62]). The Court upheld the third ground of appeal which had been added by amendment to seek a retrial because of the disclosure failures of Mr Timol and the other defendants ([84]-[102]) that emerged after the original trial and therefore the further material that should have been placed before me at that trial when deciding on Mr Timol’s liability. Snowden LJ, giving the judgment of the Court, considered it “a factor of some real weight that that the reason that the New Documents were unavailable at trial was that Mr. Timol (and the other defendants) had not disclosed them”: [96]. He stated at [87] that the new documents “plainly go to the very heart of the case against Mr. Timol and had they been available at trial, they would probably have had an important influence on the result”. The Claimant accepted before the Court of Appeal that the second ground of appeal was unsustainable following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed [2024] UKSC 17, [2025] AC 1. The second ground of appeal was that in order to establish joint liability, it was not necessary to show that Mr Timol knew that the Nemaura structure was developed using the Claimant’s confidential information.

At the time of the original liability trial, there were very few e-mails before me to which Mr Timol was copied during the relevant period. There are now far more. The Claimant’s fundamental point is that at the original trial a misleading picture of his involvement was given, and that there are now significant documents and other matters which make this clear.

The question of Mr Timol’s liability therefore falls to be determined afresh.

Mr Timol accepts that if he is found liable on the re-trial, he will be bound by the award made at the quantum phase.