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

Mr Klar’s witness statement, adopted by him as his evidence in chief, was more problematic. Most significantly, Mr Klar there sought to spin his ‘sweet spot’ idea (Appendix 3, above, at paragraphs 64-65) into a claim that “The receipt of WHT reclaims was a form of by-product of my trading, but I was not motivated to trade in order to get WHT reclaims. In fact, in terms of contributing to trading profit, WHT refunds were by no means the most significant generator of income.” That was stupid spin that was bound to come apart when tested, and it did Mr Klar no credit that he attempted it; but when the inevitable challenge came, in cross-examination, Mr Klar accepted reasonably readily that anything that might look like profit in his trading model was unrealisable except if and to the extent that WHT reclaims succeeded in amounts sufficient to cover it so that, and in any event, the generation of successful WHT reclaims was in fact the entire purpose of the Klar Model, not just a ‘by-product’.