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

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

As Professor Paul S Davies explains and emphasises in Accessory Liability (2015, Hart Studies in Private Law), which I respectfully consider an exceptional work whose only defect now is being 10 years

114.

As Professor Paul S Davies explains and emphasises in Accessory Liability (2015, Hart Studies in Private Law), which I respectfully consider an exceptional work whose only defect now is being 10 years old so it could do with being updated, for example at p.183, “Accessory liability must be parasitic upon a primary tort; if a primary tort has not been committed, then there is nothing to which accessory liability can attach.” Here, the claim is of an accessory liability on the part of Mr Shah for torts of deceit, and in the light of the conclusions I have now reached on the facts, had any such torts been committed, the primary tortfeasors could only have been:

(i)

the Tax Agent Syntax, in respect of tax refund claims it submitted after Mr Shah’s knowledge and intent became its knowledge and intent when he took control of Syntax as a corporate acquisition, if, that is, Mr Shah’s knowledge and intent had then rendered Syntax liable for deceit through the reclaim documents it submitted. Save for that case as regards Syntax, which only arises because Mr Shah came to be its directing mind and will, SKAT did not pursue any allegation that any of the Tax Agents had acted fraudulently. (For completeness only, I note that the default judgment obtained by SKAT against Syntax does not prove anything against any other defendant, as regards Syntax’s liability, if any, to SKAT);

(ii)

SCP as the true principal of the Tax Agents in respect of all Solo Model tax refund claims, again that is if Mr Shah’s knowledge and intent, being SCP’s knowledge and intent, rendered SCP liable for deceit as a primary liability;

(iii)

the Tax Agents’ named clients, i.e. the USPFs and LabCos on whose behalf the Tax Agents submitted Solo Model tax refund claims, if those clients knew that those claims would or did involve false statements being made to SKAT with a view to inducing it to accept and pay the claims.