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

As a factual witness, Mr Jain’s general approach was, in my view, to try to be clever. I assessed him to consider himself smarter than he is, with a tendency to be smug about what he perceived to be clever lines of defence or responses to points of fact on which SKAT relies against him (whether rightly or wrongly as regards the inherent strength or weakness of those points). As a result, though his manner as a witness was good – he seemed mostly responsive, clear and fair – as to the content of what he said in evidence Mr Jain adhered to a succession of bad points. He also engaged more than once in outright invention as his cross-examination progressed.

Overall, I was satisfied that Mr Jain came to the witness box to argue a case, not to give, as best he could, straightforward factual evidence, leaving argument for closing submissions. That rendered him an untrustworthy witness on whose evidence on any contentious points of importance it would be unsafe generally to place reliance.