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

I agree with SKAT’s argument against Mr Patterson that, on the evidence cited in the Patterson Annex to SKAT’s written closing submissions, it is probable, and I therefore find, that he was aware at the time he was assisting with the Solo Model trading of the form and content of the CANs issued by the Solo Model custodians, and of the fact that they would be submitted to SKAT. The argument that Mr Patterson shared a common design to deceive SKAT was the following single sentence: “From his knowledge of the [CANs], Mr Patterson was … aware of the substance of the Core Representations made to SKAT, which is sufficient for the purposes of a claim in deceit.” That is the optimistic mantra I rejected in paragraph 122 above. I reject it again as applied to Mr Patterson, and that is even if (possibly generously to SKAT) I treat it as a submission referring to the essence of the core representations, as pleaded, though in SKAT’s written closing submissions the “substance of the Core Representations” referred to the ‘substance’ statements formulated in SKAT’s Restatement document that were materially different from the representations pleaded (as referred to in the main body of this judgment, paragraph 460).