Gupta v Sucden Financial Limited (No. 2) [2026] EWCA Civ 1080

Having recently acted for the successful respondent, Sucden Financial Limited, in a civil fraud jurisdiction battle before the Court of Appeal (see here for more details), Jason Robinson KC and Charles Littlewood have secured directions for the pleadings phase of proceedings to proceed pending any further appeal to the Supreme Court.

The second defendant, Mr Gupta, had brought an appeal against the rejection of his jurisdiction challenge in respect of claims brought against him in deceit and conspiracy by Sucden, a commodities and futures options trader and broker. The Court of Appeal rejected that appeal: see [2026] EWCA Civ 986.

The parties took opposing positions regarding whether Mr Gupta should be directed to file a defence pending the resolution of any appeal he might bring to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision on jurisdiction:

  • Mr Gupta argued that he should not have to file any defence in circumstances where his options for challenging the jurisdiction of the English court had not yet been exhausted.
  • Sucden contended that the long delay in the proceedings that had already taken place warranted the pleadings progressing regardless of any appeal to the Supreme Court, and that undertakings could be given in order to protect Mr Gupta’s position should any such appeal be allowed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with Sucden that this was a case in which it was “highly desirable” that the proceedings were not “put into stasis” pending the final determination of any appeal to the Supreme Court (§22). Several reasons were given:

  • The jurisdiction challenge had failed both at first instance and on appeal.
  • Since the Court of Appeal had found that the English Courts had jurisdiction on two independent grounds, Mr Gupta would need to succeed in relation to both grounds in order for the decision to be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court.
  • The proceedings arise from events which took place over four years ago, and involve allegations of dishonesty, but have yet to progress beyond the stage of the jurisdictional challenge so far as Mr Gupta is concerned.

However, the Court of Appeal was cognisant that any order for directions should not render Mr Gupta’s proposed appeal to the Supreme Court nugatory. In particular, it was alive to the effect of CPR 11(8), which appears to be that the filing of a second acknowledgment of service following a failed jurisdiction challenge automatically results in the defendant submitting to the court’s jurisdiction. By contrast, no such automatic submission to the jurisdiction applies to the filing of a defence.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal ordered that:

  • Any further acknowledgment of service shall be filed by Mr Gupta by the date on which permission to appeal to Supreme Court is conclusively refused or, if permission is granted, when that appeal is finally resolved (§24).
  • In the meantime, the deadline for Mr Gupta to file a defence is 28 days from the sealing of the Court of Appeal’s order dismissing the jurisdiction appeal.

In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeal endorsed similar reasoning of Mr Justice Henry Carr in Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 1216 (Ch), [2018] RPC 655 and Mrs Justice O’Farrell in Município de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Limited [2023] EWHC 2607 (TCC).

A full copy of the judgment can be found here.