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

Whether I applied a test of knowledge, or concluded that belief or intent was the better test or at any rate would suffice, the trial did not give me any basis for finding against Mr Shah that he knew (or believed or intended) that the USPFs or LabCos would be or were acting fraudulently (the meaning of which I set out more fully in paragraph 124 above). Nor indeed was any such case seriously (if at all) put to Mr Shah in cross-examination; and in the Sanjay Shah Annex for closing argument in which SKAT set out its written closing submissions against him in particular, the requirement to establish that he knew (or possibly believed or intended) that a party with a primary liability in deceit was acting fraudulently was overlooked. SKAT misstated the requirements as being that (i) another person has “committed a misrepresentation”, (ii) Mr Shah had “intentionally induced or procured the principal tortfeasor into making a misrepresentation”, and (iii) Mr Shah “had knowledge of the essential facts of the misrepresentation”. The omission making that a flawed analysis was acknowledged by SKAT in oral closing argument; but no case on the facts as to Mr Shah’s knowledge (if alleged) that the USPFs or LabCos were acting fraudulently emerged, none having been set out in the Sanjay Shah Annex.