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

Apart from a brief comment, at the end, about recoveries that have been made by SKAT to date, the principal purpose of the remainder of this Appendix is to identify my key findings on SKAT’s factual case against the trial defendants as to their contemporaneous knowledge or understanding of (as relevant) Solo Model, Maple Point Model or Klar Model trading and whether deceit was being or might be being practised against SKAT. I go further than that when dealing with SKAT’s cases against Sanjay Shah, the DWF Ds and Mr Klar, so as to identify how I would have analysed the applicable boundary between principal and accessory liability in deceit on the facts of this case, and when considering Lindisfarne’s position, to identify how I would have decided its time bar defence to the deceit claim against it and what I would have made of the negligence claim against it.

The task of judging SKAT’s claims, defendant by defendant, was made harder than it could have been by the approach taken by SKAT in its written closing submissions. I made a general observation about the length of and detail in those submissions in paragraph 35 of the main body of this judgment. Not only was that a general difficulty when it came to the defendant by defendant Annexes served by SKAT, those Annexes suffered particularly from a failure to set out in a clear or concise way the nature of and basis for important findings of fact sought on the basis of inference.