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

Fecha: 02-Oct-2025

Woodfields Woodfields Financial Ltd, a Sanjay Shah D

Woodfields Holdings Woodfields Holdings Capital Ltd, a Sanjay Shah D

Appendix 2 – Causes of Action Pursued

This Appendix gives only a summary description of the types of liability alleged against the various trial defendants, as pursued by SKAT in closing argument. It does not attempt to set out, or even summarise, the factual basis, as pleaded, upon which SKAT claimed that any liability arose, and it does not refer to other or alternative bases of liability pleaded by SKAT but not pursued in closing.

Sanjay Shah Ds

SKAT alleged that each of the SSDs was liable under English law for (a) deceit, (b) conspiracy to injure by unlawful means, (c) dishonest assistance, (d) knowing receipt, and (e) unjust enrichment (by reason of mistake of fact induced by fraud), save that:

(i)

SKAT did not say that Hooloomoloo was liable for dishonest assistance;

(ii)

SKAT did not say that any of Honey Jersey, Elysium Holdings, Elysium Property Holdings and Elysium Properties was liable for deceit or dishonest assistance; and

(iii)

SKAT did not say that Skyfall Holdings was liable for knowing receipt or unjust enrichment.

Declarations and other relief were also sought against the SSDs on the basis of proprietary claims, i.e. allegations by SKAT that it had an equitable ownership interest in assets held by defendants.

SKAT’s claims against the SSDs are governed by English law, as a result of the procedural orders made in the litigation, because they did not plead a case for trial that any other system of law applies.