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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll