This was an appeal brought by the second defendant, Mr Gupta, against the rejection of his jurisdiction challenge in respect of claims brought against him in deceit and conspiracy by Sucden Financial Limited, a commodities and futures options trader and broker. Mr Gupta is alleged to have fraudulently presented shipping containers filled with low-value metal composites as containers of high-value nickel cathodes in order to induce Sucden to refrain from enforcing a debt against his company, TMT Metals.
The Court of Appeal denied Mr Gupta’s jurisdiction challenge, allowing Sucden’s claims to proceed. Jason Robinson KC and Charles Littlewood acted for Sucden (with Jason previously having obtained summary judgment against the First Defendant: see [2024] EWHC 1051 (Comm)).
Commercial Court
At first instance, Mr Gupta challenged the Court’s jurisdiction on four bases: (1) the gateway in CPR PD6B §3.1(3) (the “Necessary or Proper Party Gateway”) 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) (the “Tort Damage Gateway”) 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.
In a judgment described by the legal press as a “key precedent on international fraud jurisdiction”, Mr Justice Knowles found in Sucden’s favour: see [2025] EWHC 2006 (Comm). The Tort Damage Gateway 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 Necessary or Proper Party Gateway. 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).
Court of Appeal
Mr Gupta appealed. He was granted permission by the Court of Appeal on only one ground: that the Tort Damage Gateway was not satisfied. As additional reasons for upholding the decision of Mr Justice Knowles, Sucden relied on: (1) the Necessary or Proper Party Gateway; (2) the gateway in CPR PD6B §3.1(9)(b) (the “Tortious Act Gateway”), on the basis that Sucden had sustained damage resulting from an act committed within the jurisdiction; and (3) the gateway in CPR PD6B §3.1(9)(b) (the “Tort Applicable Law Gateway”), on the ground that the claim against Mr Gupta is governed by the law of England and Wales.
In a judgment handed down on 31 July 2026, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court below. Delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court, Lord Justice Foxton characterised the damage differently from Mr Justice Knowles, but agreed that the Tort Damage Gateway applied in the circumstances of the case (§38). Likewise, the Court held that the Tortious Act and Tort Applicable Law Gateways were also satisfied (§38 and §50 respectively). With jurisdiction successfully established on those grounds, the Court declined to reach a decision on the Necessary or Proper Party Gateway, as at first instance.
Jason Robinson KC and Charles Littlewood were instructed by Christopher Charlton, Elizabeth Preston-Whyte, and Lara Gardiner of Macfarlanes.
A full copy of the judgment can be found here.
