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

The limits of the doctrine identified in paragraph 219 above would have to have been examined more closely if SKAT had established its prima facie claim against Lindisfarne by reference to systemic reliance of the type discussed in the main body of this judgment, but which also, I found, was not made out on the facts. I do not think it necessary or appropriate to attempt a hypothetical consideration in the absence of relevant factual findings. That is particularly so bearing in mind that the central focus of Lindisfarne’s submission was the negligent inadequacy, as Lindisfarne would have it, of SKAT’s system for considering and paying tax refund claims during the relevant period, including its failure to address the obvious insufficiency of ‘Form + CAN’ as evidence of any relevant entitlement. Any judgment upon that submission would be driven by whatever conclusions had been reached as to why SKAT’s system justified a finding of inducement that I concluded could not be made.