CL-2018-000297, CL-2018-000404, CL-2018-000590, - [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm)

3 corporate defendants that no longer exist (2 dissolved, 1 liquidated);

1 corporate defendant never served, such that claims against it lapsed (Roxy Ventures LLC Solo 401K Plan);

7 defendants (2 individuals, 5 corporate entities) against whom the proceedings were discontinued by SKAT (Janice Allgrove, Robyn Llewellyn, Trixor Holdings One Ltd, Europa LLP Executive Pension Scheme, Khajuraho Equity Trading Sarl, SBD TT Ltd (in liquidation), and IPIS UK (Battersea London 1) Ltd (in liquidation));

MCML (see paragraph 26 above);

2 corporate defendants now indirectly ultimately owned by Sanjay Shah, Polaris Capital Ltd and Polaris Capital (One) Ltd, against whom, under an order I made on Day 63 of the trial, the proceedings are stayed until after this judgment is handed down;

36 defendants (7 individuals, 29 corporate entities) in respect of whom these proceedings were terminated or stayed by agreement between SKAT and those defendants, including 2 corporate defendants against whom judgment as to liability was entered in default early in the proceedings with stays relating to them being agreed much later, during the course of the trial.

A ‘Revenue Rule Trial’ to decide whether SKAT’s claims offended against what was then Dicey Rule 3, and is now Dicey Rule 20, viz. the rule of English law that:

“English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action:

(1)

for the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign State; or

(2)

founded upon an act of state.”

(Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws, 16th Ed., Rule 20 at 8R-001.)

A ‘Validity Trial’ to decide aspects of SKAT’s allegation that the tax refund claims impugned in the proceedings were not valid claims under Danish tax law. I heard that trial in Hilary Term 2023. SKAT (Validity Issues) [2023] EWHC 590 (Comm) followed. I gave the judgment that short title because it decided identified foundational issues of Danish tax law and did not decide, in terms, the validity or invalidity of any individual tax refund claim. That said, in fact it follows from the decisions I made upon those issues that each of the 4,170 tax refund claims impugned in these proceedings was an invalid claim that SKAT was not liable to pay. I explain that conclusion in paragraphs 43 to 97 below.

The Main Trial, upon which this is now the judgment, to determine all remaining issues in all the claims SKAT made in these proceedings. The Main Trial was originally fixed to commence in January 2023 and to run until Easter 2024. It was re-fixed, after the Court of Appeal decision on the Revenue Rule, to commence immediately after Easter 2024. A Main Trial timetable was developed for openings and evidence to occupy the Easter, Trinity and Michaelmas Terms 2024, including reading time, respite breaks and possible overrun, with closing argument to follow in the second half of Hilary Term 2025, after an exchange of written closing submissions.

Firstly, I think it right to acknowledge specially the helpful contribution to the effectiveness of the presentation of the case at trial made by oral advocacy from junior counsel for SKAT, the Shah Ds and the DWF Ds. They were the only legally represented parties appearing by more than one advocate, so they were the only parties with decisions to make about how to share the key tasks of presenting the case orally at trial. In particular, Messrs Rabinowitz KC, Graham KC and Goldsmith KC, for SKAT, not only shared between themselves the large burden of leading the case in a way that was logical, efficient and helpful, but also led by example in ensuring that responsibility for oral advocacy was also shared substantially with their (extensive) team of juniors; and the extent to which Ms Freeman and Ms McCann led for the Shah Ds on parts of the case and with some of the witnesses was very welcome. In my view, this trial was a good example proving what is said in paragraph 2 of the Practice Guidance (Junior Advocacy) of 8 July 2025 issued jointly by Henshaw J and HHJ Pelling KC, for the Commercial Court and the London Circuit Commercial Court.

Secondly, I am grateful to Pinsent Masons for showing in numerous ways throughout the proceedings, and acting upon, a keen awareness that they had an important role, given the size and complexity of the case and the number of defendants, especially (as it became) the number of unrepresented defendants, in coordination and communication, with the other parties and with the court, and on occasion, at my request, effectively on behalf of the court. The way they fulfilled that role was a significant part of enabling the litigation to proceed at all, and assisted the court in making sure that all parties who wished to be heard had their fair and sufficient opportunity. In that role, it was essential that Pinsent Masons act independently as officers of the court, separately from acting as SKAT’s solicitors pursuing their client’s cause. I respectfully consider that they carried out that additional role to a high standard.

Thirdly, my particular thanks on behalf of all trial participants go to Opus2 International Ltd, whose services the parties used for the litigation here. Opus2 thus hosted the case digitally for 5½ years or so on a shared, secure workspace, and provided magnificent support for the Main Trial hearing (and also for almost all if not all of the other hearings in the case, including the two preliminary issue trials). For the Main Trial, that included Opus2 organising and hosting remote access for those authorised to attend remotely, for which they worked closely and constructively with my Clerk. As I said in court when thanking Opus2 for all that assistance: my instinct is that we are all good enough at what we do in the Commercial Court, that is the court itself, legal practitioners in the court, and our litigants, that without the kind of digital service that Opus2 (and no doubt other providers too) can now offer, somehow we would have found a way to make the trial work; but at the same time, the service from Opus2 was so good and so helpful that I am not at all sure I could in fact identify how, really, we could have managed without it, or something like it.