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

The Lindisfarne Annex to SKAT’s written closing submissions put forward a flawed analysis of any possible liability in deceit. The argument for a finding that Lindisfarne should be held responsible for the representations alleged by SKAT, if they were made, consisted of two unnecessary paragraphs citing pleadings and evidence for the undisputed proposition that Lindisfarne issued the Lindisfarne CANs (i.e. they were not forgeries) and a one-sentence third paragraph asserting as follows:

“That the representations in the Lindisfarne DCA[s] were being made by Lindisfarne was clear on the face of the documents, which were on Lindisfarne headed paper and included Lindisfarne’s registration in the footer.”

Any representation in a Lindisfarne CAN, however, was not a representation to SKAT, but rather a representation, albeit indeed by Lindisfarne, to its client, the addressee of the CAN. SKAT’s case on this key element of any claim of primary liability for deceit against Lindisfarne thus suffered from the misdirection to which I referred in paragraph 472 of the main body of this judgment.