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

SKAT alleged that each of the Jain Ds was liable under English law for (a) deceit, (b) conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, (c) dishonest assistance, (d) knowing receipt, and (e) unjust enrichment (by reason of mistake of fact induced by fraud).

Declarations and other relief were also sought against the Jain Ds on the basis of alleged proprietary claims, under English law.

The Jain Ds contended that the claims against them are governed by Danish law, alternatively the law of Labuan, Malaysia. However, they pleaded no case as to the content of the law of Labuan and did not seek permission to adduce or seek in fact to adduce any evidence of that law. They abandoned and withdrew their plea as to Danish law prior to any expert evidence of Danish law being called at trial, and agreed to the determination of SKAT’s claims against them on the basis of English law. In consequence SKAT’s claims under Danish law, pleaded strictly in the alternative, fell away.