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

The final witness of fact at the Main Trial, Mr Mitchell, was a peculiar mix in giving evidence. Most of the time, and allowing properly for some occasional difficulty he had in dealing with questions put as hypotheticals, Mr Mitchell gave straightforward, simple, candid answers, in which he was fair and credible about what the facts had been, including his own knowledge or understanding at the time, and about his current lack of detailed recollection, where that was the position. However, his evidence became generally defensive nonsense when asked about the centrally coordinated nature of the trading, such that he and Mr Oakley were not making, in any meaningful sense, their own trading decisions. His evidence about the obfuscatory dishonesty involved in the invoicing and payment of his and Mr Oakley’s fees for acting as short sellers in Solo Model trading was also a risible attempt to defend the indefensible.

In both of those unsatisfactory respects, as with other witnesses, it did Mr Mitchell no credit generally that he gave such evidence. That led me to exercise some real caution about his evidence as a whole. However, the point over which I lingered when considering Sanjay Shah arises again (see paragraphs 9 to 11 above). In my judgment, Mr Mitchell knew, at the time and when giving evidence, that all Solo Model trading was directed in every way by the Solo GSS team, so that short sellers like himself and Mr Oakley, likewise the other participants (equity buyers, stock lenders and forward counterparties), simply traded what they were told by GSS to trade; and he appreciated at the time that Sanjay Shah wanted that central direction and coordination to be obscured.