[2025] EWHC 2759 (Ch)

In his oral evidence for the re-trial, Mr Timol was a fluent but argumentative witness. He spoke particularly fluently about the commercial elements of OneE’s business but often did not answer questions directly, particularly those difficult to his case, and was defensive at a number of points.

It was clear to me that he had no real recollection of matters from 2014, and certainly no detailed recollection.

Moreover, as explained further below, I consider that a number of elements of his evidence that if true would tell in his favour are implausible and incorrect, particularly (a) that he would not have read the e-mails in October 2014 shortly after the launch of the Nemaura structure relaying to him that Mr Corrigan was threatening to bring proceedings in relation to the Nemaura structure, and (b) that he would not have paid attention to at least the outline of how Mr Corrigan explained the Claimant’s structuring idea at the 4 February 2014 meeting.

I also take into account that his evidence on some important points changed over the course of his witness statements, namely (a) his level of understanding of R&D relief and (b) his explanation of why he had failed to disclose at the liability trial the documents subsequently disclosed by Mr Johnson in the course of the quantum element of the proceedings, and that in respect of (a) his initial explanation in written evidence in the original liability trial- that he had a good understanding of R&D relief (which he since denies)- was at the time marshalled to support his and the other Defendants’ argument that OneE came up with the tax planning for the Nemaura structures themselves without Mr Corrigan.

Further, as explained below, his attitude to disclosure was in my judgment at best cavalier and he suggested that did not fully engage with the proceedings until after the Court of Appeal had ordered a retrial. In my judgment, that suggests someone who at the very lowest was not taking the appropriate level of care to be accurate in his evidence.

More than that, at a number of points his oral evidence when dealing with material adverse to him he was prone to putting arguments to seek to justify his position, and arguments that I found unconvincing, or to making suggestions in his favour that I found implausible. I deal with that further below.

Taking the above together, I consider that I should treat his evidence with significant caution where not positively supported by the documents unless it seems obviously correct.

I would not go further than that and conclude- as the Claimant invites me to- that he was a generally dishonest witness. For example, at a very high level the evidence he gave that he was focused on the commercial side of the business was, I find, true. Rather there was an exaggeration of the limits of his understanding of the tax treatment of the key OneE products that this role would and did involve, and as part of that he made a number of statements that I consider were implausible and incorrect, as mentioned above.