This was a hearing of the second defendant’s jurisdiction challenge in respect of claims brought against him by Sucden Financial Limited, a commodities, futures and options trader and broker, in deceit and conspiracy. Jason acted for Sucden. This application follows a hearing before Mr Justice Picken in 2024, where Jason obtained summary judgment for Sucden against the first defendant: see [2024] EWHC 1051 (Comm)
Mr. Gupta challenged the Court’s jurisdiction on four bases: (1) the gateway in CPR PD6B §3.1(3) was not satisfied because Mr. Gupta was not a necessary or proper party to the claim against the first defendant; (2) the gateway in CPR PD6B §3.1(9) was not satisfied because the tortious damage was not sustained within this jurisdiction; (3) there was no serious issue to be tried against Mr. Gupta; and (4) England was not clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum to determine the claim against Mr. Gupta.
Mr Justice Knowles found in Sucden’s favour. The gateway in CPR PD6B §3.1(9) was satisfied because one of the fraudulent misrepresentations alleged took place, on Mr. Gupta’s evidence, in London (§20), and the damage arising from the alleged deceit and conspiracy was sustained by Sucden in this jurisdiction (§21). The Court therefore did not need to consider the gateway in CPR PD6B §3.1(3). The Court also rejected the suggestion that there was no serious issue to be tried (§25) and that England was not the most appropriate forum for the dispute to be resolved (§26), adding that: “The facts of the case involve a number of jurisdictions in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. It is possible to make points for and against the appropriateness of a number of jurisdictions. However, the balance clearly and distinctly shows the English Court to be the most appropriate forum” (§27).
Jason Robinson KC was instructed by Christopher Charlton, Elizabeth Preston-Whyte and Michael Freedman of Macfarlanes.
