Skatteforvaltningen (The Danish Customs and Tax Administration) (Appellant) v MCML Ltd (previously known as ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd) (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0090

Parties

Appellant(s)

Skatteforvaltningen, the Danish Customs and Tax Administration ("SKAT")

Respondent(s)

MCML LTD (previously known as ED&F MAN CAPITAL MARKETS LTD)

Issue

The scope of the doctrine of issue estoppel.

Facts

The Appellant (Skat) is the Danish tax administration. In previous legal proceedings (issued in 2018), it sued a number of defendants, on the basis that it had been induced by misrepresentations to pay out large sums of money by way of tax refunds to people who had no entitlement to them. The Respondent (EDFM) was one of the defendants in those proceedings. It was alleged that it had made the misrepresentations negligently, (but not fraudulently). Those claims were struck out by Andrew Baker J on the basis that they were precluded by a well-established principle that the English courts will not entertain a claim brought by a foreign state for the purpose of tax collection (referred to as the “revenue rule”). That ruling was successfully appealed, but not against the Respondent. In 2022, the Appellant issued a second claim against EDFM. That is the claim with which this appeal is concerned. This new claim is similar to the previous claim: it is also based on misrepresentations having been made to the Appellant and falsely inducing the payment of tax refunds. But now it is said that EDFM made those representations fraudulently, and not just negligently. In the High Court, EDFM applied to have the proceedings struck out on the basis that the doctrine of issue estoppel (a doctrine which prevents parties from relitigating disputes that have already been decided) barred Skat from bringing the claim. The High Court concluded that Skat was free to continue its claim. The Court of Appeal overturned that conclusion by a majority (Lord Justice Nugee partially dissenting), such that the claim would be struck out. Skat now appeals to the Supreme Court.