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

Since Lindisfarne acted honestly, I find, at the time, any claim against it founded upon the honest custodian representation could not succeed. For completeness, SKAT’s argument was once again flawed through want of a proper analysis of what the alleged liability required it to prove. SKAT rested its case that Lindisfarne was aware that the honest custodian representation was made upon Lindisfarne’s “pleaded position … that the DCAs were intended to be honest and accurate statements of the facts set out therein …”. That was said to be a material and sufficient concession (“… (i.e. the Custodian Honesty Representation)”), but it is not at all. The honest custodian representation, if made, would have been a representation by the Tax Agent to SKAT that Lindisfarne honestly believed the core representations to be true. Lindisfarne did not concede, and I could not on the evidence find, that it had awareness at the time that any such representation would be or was being made to SKAT.