header-logo header-logo

12 May 2021
Issue: 7932 / Categories: Legal News , Tax , Costs
printer mail-detail

Danish tax office must pay indemnity costs

Denmark has been ordered to pay indemnity costs to more than 90 defendants after losing its claim for recovery of more than £1.5bn lost in an alleged dividend trading fraud.

In a ruling on costs this week, Mr Justice Baker said: ‘the litigation was brought and aggressively pursued, by a sovereign state with a willingness to expend effectively unlimited resources’ and was ‘politically as well as financially motivated’, in Skatteforvaltningen (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration) v Solo Capital Partners (in special administration) & Ors [2021] EWHC 1222 (Comm).

Baker J said the indemnity basis of deciding costs ‘is apt to result in a greater recovery than the standard basis’. He referred to caselaw clarifying that, for the indemnity basis to be used, the conduct of the parties or other circumstances of the case must be ‘out of the norm’, and each case is decided on its facts (Excelsior Commercial [2002] EWCA Civ 879).

He noted the litigation ‘was the subject of ill-judged public statements by senior Danish politicians appearing to pre-judge the factual issues that would have fallen to be determined by the court’ and ‘involved a degree of “playing to the gallery” in response to the significant media interest this affair has generated in Denmark’.

Baker J dismissed the Danish tax authority SKAT’s claim in April. SKAT had sought to recover the proceeds of alleged unlawfully and fraudulently withheld tax applications submitted following dividend arbitrage trading between 2012 and 2015. The defendants denied the allegations and any other wrongdoing.

Joshua Fineman, director at DWF, which acted for three of the defendants, said: ‘These proceedings, and the pursuit of them by a government entity prepared to expend unlimited resources, were clearly out of the ordinary. I am pleased that this was recognised by Mr Justice Andrew Baker by his decision to order costs on the indemnity basis.’

Nick Leigh, senior associate, Dispute Resolution, Rosenblatt said: ‘The judge’s decision to award indemnity costs was a consequence of the “no stones left unturned” approach to the litigation adopted by SKAT and is a stark warning to litigants to conduct their cases in a reasonable and proportionate manner, no matter the resources in their arsenal.’

Issue: 7932 / Categories: Legal News , Tax , Costs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll