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

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

SKAT accepted, on the authority of Canada Square Operations v Potter [2023] UKSC 41, [2024] AC 679, that a concealed fact is only relevant to the right of action for the purpose of s.32(1)(b), if the

192.

SKAT accepted, on the authority of Canada Square Operations v Potter [2023] UKSC 41, [2024] AC 679, that a concealed fact is only relevant to the right of action for the purpose of s.32(1)(b), if the claimant’s cause of action would be incomplete (incapable of being pleaded) without it. As I concluded in paragraph 189 above, on the assumption necessarily now made that Lindisfarne had acted fraudulently in 2015, the only gap possibly blocking SKAT from pleading a deceit claim against Lindisfarne was cogent evidence that Lindisfarne knew that its CANs related to trades settled without shares. But Lindisfarne had confirmed by RFI Requests prior to the exchange of solicitors’ letters in June/July 2019 that:

(i)

none of the share purchases underlying Lindisfarne CANs was reported to Lindisfarne’s sub-custodian, and Lindisfarne had at all times no shares held in custody relating to the trades;

(ii)

the amounts credited to clients and reported by the Lindisfarne CANs were traceable only to amounts debited from short sellers, and there was never any payment coming to Lindisfarne up a custody chain;

(iii)

the amounts labelled ‘tax’ in Lindisfarne CANs did not correspond to tax withheld by the Danish company in any traceable sense; and

(iv)

Lindisfarne had oversight of all the structured transactions so as to have known all of that at the time.