Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Autogas (Europe) Ltd v Ochocki and others  EWHC 2345 (Ch) (7 September 2018)
Allegations of dishonest assistance must be carefully pleaded and supported by cogent evidence.
The test for dishonesty is whether, on the basis of the primary facts pleaded, an inference of dishonesty is more likely than one of innocence or negligence. ‘There must be some fact which tilts the balance and justifies an inference of dishonesty and that fact must be both pleaded and proved,’ Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England  UKHL 16, per Lord Millett at paragraph 186. That means that while it is not necessary to plead dishonesty expressly, it is necessary to plead the primary facts supporting an inference of dishonesty. In the absence of those facts, the claim will fall.
In this case, the claimant alleged ‘collusive dishonesty,’ not ‘contingent dishonesty’ by the defendants. The former term means that the defendants were aware from the start that there was a breach by a fiduciary and that their cooperation was required for it to work. The latter term is where a party is alerted to factors along the way that would suggest a breach by a fiduciary and turns a blind eye. By pleading the case as one of ‘collusive dishonesty,’ the claimant needed to ensure that position could be proved by supporting evidence.
The evidential burden to prove dishonest assistance is the civil balance of probability test—the same test as for allegations of negligence. However, a claim of dishonesty is more serious and improbable than an allegation of negligence so more cogent evidence will be required to satisfy the civil standard of proof. Where, as in this case, the claim against the defendants rests on inferences drawn from the primary facts, those inferences must be sound and not speculative.
The case involved an alleged ‘VAT Acquisition Fraud’ perpetrated through chains of sales of German electricity. The claimant supplied electricity to OCH which was owned by the first and second defendants. The third defendant was the daughter of the second defendant and was OCH’s administrator. The transactions between HCX (who sold the electricity to the claimant), the claimant and OCH were part of a longer chain. The pattern of the sales was suspicious with the ultimate buyer often paying less than the original sale price at the top of the chain.
HCX was registered in the Netherlands so no VAT was payable on its supply to the claimant but VAT was payable in respect of the claimant’s supply to OCH. Despite the claimant’s invoices specifying their UK bank account, payments (including VAT) were made to non-UK bank accounts in HCX’s name. HCX did not account to the claimant for the payments and the claimant was therefore unable to pay the VAT due to HMRC, resulting in the claimant’s insolvency. HMRC also sought a reassessment of OCH’s VAT liabilities and reached a settlement with OCH and the second defendant (HMRC Settlement).
The claimant (acting by the liquidator) had obtained judgment against its de facto directors on the basis that they had allowed the transfer of assets to HCX (including trading profits and VAT) which were not repaid (the Earlier Proceedings).
The claimant now sought damages against the three individuals (the defendants) who were involved in OCH at the time when it traded with the claimant, on the ground that the defendants had dishonestly assisted in the fraud. The way that the claim was ultimately put imputed collusion by the defendants with the primary fraudsters, ie that there had to be have been within OCH at least one ‘rotten apple’ who would co-operate with irregular or suspicious trading patterns and payment requests and would not ask too many questions or alert the authorities to anything untoward (see para ).
Note, the findings of primary fraud in the Earlier Proceedings in respect of the dealings between the claimant and HCX were not binding in the present case but no attempt was made by the defendants to argue that those findings were wrong. The key issue was therefore whether the defendants had provided dishonest assistance in the primary fraud.
The relevant law for establishing liability as an accessory on the ground of dishonest assistance was considered at paras -.
The claim failed. While the court accepted there was ‘assistance’ thus rejecting the defendants’ argument on causation, the claimant failed to prove dishonesty.
The court highlighted problems with the pleaded case (on a ‘collusion’ basis) as there was an absence of direct evidence of collusion and it did not consider that the primary facts supported an inference of dishonesty.
It set out a number of factors it considered (which carried varying degrees of weight) in deciding if dishonesty could be inferred. These included:
The defendants’ argument that the claimant be stopped from bringing the claim on the basis of the HMRC Settlement was firmly rejected as the claimant was not a party to that agreement.
0330 161 1234