Visit JCPCUKSC/2025/0204
•
TORT
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited and others (Respondents) v Dechert LLP (Appellant)
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2025/0204
Parties
Appellant(s)
Dechert LLP
Respondent(s)
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited
David Neil Gerrard
The Director of the Serious Fraud Office
Issue
Was the Court of Appeal wrong to allow ENRC to amend its statement of case?
Facts
This appeal concerns applications made by the respondent (“ENRC”) in November 2024 to amend its claims for loss during the quantum phase of two long-running sets of Commercial Court proceedings. ENRC is the claimant in those underlying proceedings, which concern losses caused to ENRC by the initiation of a criminal investigation (“CI”) commenced against ENRC by the SFO in April 2014. That investigation lasted until August 2024, but resulted in no charges being brought. In the course of the proceedings so far, ENRC has successfully established that Dechert LLP and Mr David Gerrard (together, the “Dechert defendants”) and the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) breached duties they owed to ENRC and in doing so caused losses to ENRC. One category of losses claimed by ENRC since the outset of the proceedings is increased borrowing costs, which ENRC alleges resulted from the opening of the CI. At the stage when ENRC made its applications to amend, the outstanding issues in the underlying proceedings concerned the assessment of quantum. Preliminary directions for the quantum phase (“Phase 2”) were given by Waksman J (the Judge who had managed the proceedings and dealt with the earlier stages) in March 2024. The applications were made in November 2024, and were the result of ENRC realising that a significant proportion of the increased borrowing costs had not been incurred by ENRC itself, but by one or more of its subsidiary companies. ENRC therefore sought permission to amend its claim, so as to claim for the diminution in the value of its shareholdings in the subsidiaries. ENRC relied on the increased borrowing costs to its subsidiaries as a ‘dollar for dollar’ measure of its own loss in the value of the shareholdings, adjusted only by the tax implications that lower borrowing costs would have had on net profits. The SFO and the Dechert defendants accepted that these amendments had a real prospect of success. They nevertheless opposed the amendments on the basis that the delay in advancing them, for which there was no good reason, meant that no litigation hold had been placed on the subsidiaries’ documents, with the result that allowing the amendments would cause substantial prejudice to the defendants. The first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in Phase 2 took place on 15 January 2025. The applications to amend were considered at that CMC. By an order dated 14 February 2025, Waksman J dismissed the amendment applications. He held that the amendments were late, that there was no good reason for the delay, that ENRC was the author of its own misfortune, and that ENRC had failed to demonstrate that there was no risk that documents relevant to the issues raised by the amendment had ceased to be available. He therefore concluded that the balance of prejudice lay against granting the applications, and refused to grant them. ENRC appealed against Waksman J’s decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and held that Waksman J had been wrong to allow the potential risk of injustice to the defendants to outweigh the certain injustice which ENRC would face if it was not permitted to make the amendments. The SFO and Dechert defendants now appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision. They ask the Supreme Court to refuse the amendment applications
Date of issue
22 December 2025
Case origin
PTA
