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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll