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

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

It will become apparent from what follows why it had not jumped readily off the page of SKAT’s pleading that it also pursued a case of the kind considered in paragraph 9 ff of this Appendix, above; bu

97.

It will become apparent from what follows why it had not jumped readily off the page of SKAT’s pleading that it also pursued a case of the kind considered in paragraph 9ff of this Appendix, above; but I have come to the view that such a case was indeed pleaded:

(i)

At first blush, SKAT’s only relevant pleaded case in the Particulars of Claim seemed to be at paragraph 57(b), alleging that Mr Shah was primarily liable as one of a number of alleged “true principals on whose ultimate instructions the [Tax] Agents were acting”.

(ii)

Paragraph 59 alleged that Mr Shah induced or procured the making of allegedly fraudulent representations. That is a plea of accessory liability, albeit without identifying the alleged primary tortfeasor in respect of whose deceit, if proved at trial, there might be an accessory liability on the basis of inducing or procuring their tort. Since nothing different was specified, however, and reading paragraphs 57 to 59 together, so far as they relate to Mr Shah, I would say that paragraph 59 alleged accessory liability in respect of the alleged primary liability of Syntax (paragraph 57(a)), the others alleged to have been “true principals” of the Tax Agents in Solo Model tax reclaims (paragraph 57(b)), and the Solo Model custodians (paragraph 58(a)).

(iii)

There were further pleas that, on their own terms, appeared also to be pleas of accessory liability, alleging participation in a common design to deceive SKAT (paragraphs 57(c) and 58(b)). They likewise did not specify the alleged primary fraudster, and seemed similarly to have been alleging accessory liability in respect of the primary liabilities identified in this key run of paragraphs.