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

SKAT also pursued causes of action in deceit on the basis of accessory liability, in some cases against defendants not said to have a primary liability, in other cases as an alternative claim where primary liability was alleged. In Lifestyle Equities, supra, the Supreme Court confirmed that accessory liability required (i) a primary actionable wrong, and (ii) that the accessory intended the primary wrongdoer to do that which constituted the primary wrong. That does not require the accessory to appreciate that the result, if their intention is realised, will be the commission of an actionable wrong by the primary wrongdoer. Here, where the primary wrong alleged was deceit, accessory liability required the alleged accessory to intend that SKAT be misled into paying tax refund claims by misrepresentations made to it through the submission of those claims by Tax Agents on behalf of named clients and that either (i) those named clients would know that, or be recklessly indifferent as to whether, those representations were false, or (ii) the Tax Agents were being used by the primary tortfeasor(s), with intent that SKAT be deceived, as the means by which to achieve that intent.

An alleged accessory having that intent is liable, SKAT alleged, if they procured or induced the primary tortfeasor(s) to commit their fraud or if they gave more than trivial assistance in the commission of that fraud pursuant to a common design that SKAT should be deceived.