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

On the pleaded case, I consider it is not necessary to go any further than that for any case of primary liability for deceit against Mr Shah to be dismissed. In case that is wrong, and in case it might ever matter, I do go further, however. Mr Shah’s ingrained habit of obfuscation as regards SCP’s tax reclaim business and his ready willingness to engage in collateral dishonesty in relation to it notwithstanding, I was left quite clear after the extensive exploration of Mr Shah and his methods at trial, that he did not plot with others or in some other way set out to trick SKAT into paying tax refund claims through falsehoods in the tax reclaim documents that would be submitted to it. He did, I find, plot with others and set out to cause tax refund claims to be made to SKAT without any positive belief that they would be valid claims, hoping that SKAT would accept and not challenge them. That was not alleged by SKAT to give it any cause of action (either in the tort of deceit, which is my immediate focus, or as unlawful means for a conspiracy claim, which I deal with below).