Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors

Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors

The disadvantages of interrupting the trial for the judge to act as special examiner in Dubai, including procedural inequality, loss of judicial control, and systemic burdens, outweigh any marginal benefit to the quality of evidence. Remote testimony at trial is sufficient and does not materially prejudice the DWF Defendants. The application is refused.

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
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/fraud) / Pre Trial Review; Application for Evidence to Be Taken by Special Examiner Abroad Refused
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Taking Evidence Abroad, Remote Testimony, Special Examiner Appointment, Case Management, Witness Evidence
Civil Procedure International Judicial Assistance Taking Evidence Abroad Remote Testimony Special Examiner Appointment Case 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

Civil (commercial/fraud) / Pre Trial Review; Application for Evidence to Be Taken by Special Examiner Abroad Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge can appoint themselves as special examiner under CPR 34.13(4) to take evidence abroad during trial
  2. 2 Whether it is in the interests of justice to adjourn trial and take evidence from DWF Defendants in Dubai rather than by remote testimony

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 systemic burdens, outweigh any marginal benefit to the quality of evidence. Remote testimony at trial is sufficient and does not materially prejudice the DWF Defendants. The application is refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • The DWF Defendants' application for the trial judge to sit as special examiner in Dubai to take their evidence is refused.