header-logo header-logo

Danish tax office must pay indemnity costs

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll