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

If required, Lindisfarne alleged that there was fault by SKAT in causing any losses for which Lindisfarne might be held liable, such that damages should be reduced for contributory negligence under the 1945 Act. I would have agreed with SKAT that on the authorities as they stand, carelessness in accepting and relying on the word of the defendant misrepresentor may not be relied upon by the defendant as contributory negligence in a negligent misstatement claim: see Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932, per Lord Dunedin at 962; Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corp (No.2) [2002] UKHL 43, [2003] 1 AC 959, per Lord Hoffman at [14]-[17]; Gran Gelato v Richcliff [1992] Ch 560 at 574-575; McCullagh v Fox Lane [1996] PNLR 205 at 240.

If therefore the cause of loss to SKAT had been reliance by Mr Nielsen on misstatements made by Lindisfarne that Lindisfarne had intended should induce SKAT to pay tax refund claims supported by its CANs, I would have said that damages did not fall to be reduced even if that reliance was careless on the part of Mr Nielsen. On the facts, of course, my finding was that there was no such reliance.