Concealment, dishonesty & exploitation—but no fraud

The High Court has ruled that the Danish tax authority can’t recover £1.4bn in refund claims. Yasseen Gailani & Alexander Martin explain

The judgment is a reminder for claimants of how high the bar is for proving fraud, even where a defendant has been dishonest.

In the recent case of Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs and Tax Administration) v Solo Capital Partners LLP and others [2025] EWHC 2364 (Comm), the High Court found that the Danish tax authority could not recover £1.4bn paid out to various hedge fund managers, including British trader Sanjay Shah, for invalid tax refund claims. This case illustrates the importance of rigorous scrutiny of payment approvals and appropriate training and supervision for employees, particularly for public bodies.

The claimant was the Danish Customs and Tax Administration, Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT). The defendants were various funds and traders implicated in a ‘cum-ex’ dividend scheme, a well-publicised alleged tax fraud involving Danish dividend tax refunds between 2012 and 2015. Cum-ex trading involved trading listed shares

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Concealment, dishonesty & exploitation—but no fraud

The High Court has ruled that the Danish tax authority can’t recover £1.4bn in refund claims. Yasseen Gailani & Alexander Martin explain

The judgment is a reminder for claimants of how high the bar is for proving fraud, even where a defendant has been dishonest.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS

Read All

NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap

A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’

NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads

Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design

NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?

Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle

NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children

A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings

NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown

A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996

Error message

Concealment, dishonesty & exploitation—but no fraud

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Switalskis—Grimsby

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury