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

SKAT submitted that “[the] principles governing whether a defendant made a representation … addressed in the context of deceit … apply equally to a claim in negligent misrepresentation”. The claim was that Lindisfarne owed SKAT a duty to take reasonable care over what it said to its clients in its CANs to them, because it knew or should have realised that the purpose of those CANs was to be provided to SKAT to support a tax refund claim to be submitted by or on behalf of the client. In my view, the principles for attributing responsibility cannot be the same as in a deceit claim, although there may be cases where the same factors are decisive. For deceit, depending on the facts, the justification for a finding that D has a liability for a misrepresentation made by R to C may be tied to D’s intention to cause C to be misled. An assumption of responsibility by D towards C to take care in doing something that resulted in R making a misrepresentation to C must be based on factors rendering it just to impose liability for careless conduct, bearing in mind in particular the very absence of intent on D’s part to cause C to be misled.

For the facts of this case, and reflecting the claim pursued at trial, the first two elements of the cause of action are better reformulated as requirements for SKAT to establish that: