Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 19 (Comm) (12 January 2024)

Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 19 (Comm) (12 January 2024)

The disadvantages of interrupting the trial for the judge to act as special examiner in Dubai, including procedural inequality, loss of judicial control, and disruption to court business, clearly outweighed any marginal benefit to the quality of the DWF Defendants' evidence. Remote evidence at trial is sufficient and fair in the circumstances. The application was refused.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 19 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: SKATTEFORVALTNINGEN (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration); Defendants: Solo Capital Partners LLP (in special administration) and others; Defendants: Sanjay Shah Defendants and Usha Shah; Defendants: DWF Defendants (Graham Horn, Anupe Dhorajiwala, Rajen Shah)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Consolidated Claims / Pre Trial Review; Application for Special Examiner Deposition Order
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Remote Evidence, Special Examiner Appointment, Deposition Abroad, Trial Management, Witness Evidence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Remote Evidence Special Examiner Appointment Deposition Abroad Trial Management Witness Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SKATTEFORVALTNINGEN (the Danish Customs and Tax Administration)

Claimant

Solo Capital Partners LLP (in special administration) and others

Defendants

Sanjay Shah Defendants and Usha Shah

Defendants

DWF Defendants (Graham Horn, Anupe Dhorajiwala, Rajen Shah)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Consolidated Claims / Pre Trial Review; Application for Special Examiner Deposition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge should appoint himself as special examiner under CPR 34.13(4) to take depositions in Dubai from the DWF Defendants during the trial period instead of their giving evidence remotely at trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The disadvantages of interrupting the trial for the judge to act as special examiner in Dubai, including procedural inequality, loss of judicial control, and disruption to court business, clearly outweighed any marginal benefit to the quality of the DWF Defendants' evidence. Remote evidence at trial is sufficient and fair in the circumstances. The application was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The DWF Defendants' application for the trial judge to act as special examiner in Dubai and take their evidence by deposition was refused.