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

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

Accessory Liability for Deceit As with Sanjay Shah for the Solo Model tax reclaim business (paragraph 113 ff , above), the possible accessory liability for deceit that would have required to be considered in the case of the DWF Ds

Accessory Liability for Deceit

170.

As with Sanjay Shah for the Solo Model tax reclaim business (paragraph 113ff, above), the possible accessory liability for deceit that would have required to be considered in the case of the DWF Ds, for both the Solo Model and the Maple Point Model, if I had found that SKAT was misled into paying tax refund claims by misrepresentations, as it alleged, would have been the possible liability alleged by SKAT for inducing or procuring deceit. No allegation was pursued that the Tax Agents acted fraudulently in respect of tax refund claims with which the DWF Ds had any involvement. The possible primary tortfeasors, therefore, could only have been:

(i)

SCP (for Solo Model trades prior in each case to the respective DWF D’s departure from Solo);

(ii)

Oryx (for 2014 trades, affecting all three DWF Ds), if through Rajen Shah as its directing mind Oryx had the understanding and intention to render it liable for deceit and WWAM (for 2015 trades, affecting only Mr Horn), if through Mr Horn WWAM had such an understanding and intention, the additional candidacy of Maple Point not in practice adding anything; or

(iii)

the relevant USPFs.