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

In the present case, any analysis of SKAT’s claims in deceit has the complexity throughout that any representations were made by the Tax Agents as part of tax refund claims they submitted to SKAT on behalf of named clients. SKAT did not allege that the Tax Agents acted fraudulently (except in the case of Syntax, after it came into Sanjay Shah’s ownership and control). I return to that, below, for other issues to which it gave rise at trial. The consequence for the present point is that a claim of deceit through reckless indifference as to the meaning of a representation, if it is to be recognised at all, could not be formulated in this case as I formulated it in Pisante, which concerned statements made directly by Mr Logothetis to Mr Pisante to induce Mr Pisante to invest, as he then did.

I consider that such a case was open to SKAT on the pleadings. In Schedule 5B to the Particulars of Claim, within the pleading of its case against Sanjay Shah, for example, SKAT alleged at paragraph 7C, so far as is now material, that:

“… Sanjay Shah knew, or was reckless as to whether it was the case, that:

7C(a) The [equity buyers] in the Solo Model would and did make [claims] to SKAT for the “refund” of dividend withholding tax that included representations to SKAT in the form of [the core representations and the honest custodian representation].”

(my emphasis)

Equivalent allegations were made against other parties said to have a primary liability for deceit.