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

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll