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

The DWF Ds argued against any such conclusion; but the argument addressed the wrong question in such a way as rather to confirm that there was no separate point on intention to induce. It was said for each of Mr Horn, Rajen Shah and Mr Dhorajiwala, in turn, that he “had no intention that SKAT would rely on any statements in the [tax reclaim documents] in a sense in which they were false”, and then that “SKAT’s case on this point [intention to induce] necessarily fails given that [he] did not understand those documents to contain the Core Representations, or the Custodian Honesty Representation.” However, logically, and following the structure adopted by SKAT’s written argument, the issue of intention to induce reliance by SKAT was addressed after the prior question, on which SKAT had to succeed, whether the defendant in question understood and intended, at the time, that the pleaded representations would be or were being made to SKAT.