Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1307 (16 October 2025)

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1307 (16 October 2025)

The judge erred by treating the risk of prejudice from unavailable subsidiary documents as outweighing the certain prejudice to ENRC from refusal of amendments, without sufficient evidence of actual prejudice to defendants. Amendments should be allowed at early quantum phase, with disclosure issues managed subsequently.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1307
Parties
Appellant, Claimant (2017 and 2019 Claims): Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited; Respondent, Defendant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Claimant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Defendant (2019 Claim): Dechert LLP; Respondent, Defendant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Claimant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Defendant (2019 Claim): David Neil Gerrard; Respondent, Defendant (2019 Claim), Part 20 Defendant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Claimant (2019 Claim): The Director of the Serious Fraud Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court, Commercial Court (kbd) / Appeal Against Refusal of Amendment Applications at Quantum Phase (phase 2)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Disclosure Obligations, Quantum of Damages, Reflective Loss, Case Management
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Disclosure Obligations Quantum of Damages Reflective Loss Case Management

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited

Appellant, Claimant (2017 and 2019 Claims)

Dechert LLP

Respondent, Defendant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Claimant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Defendant (2019 Claim)

David Neil Gerrard

Respondent, Defendant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Claimant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Defendant (2019 Claim)

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Respondent, Defendant (2019 Claim), Part 20 Defendant (2017 Claim), Part 20 Claimant (2019 Claim)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court, Commercial Court (kbd) / Appeal Against Refusal of Amendment Applications at Quantum Phase (phase 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether late amendments to loss claims should be permitted
  2. 2 Whether prejudice to defendants from lack of litigation hold outweighs prejudice to claimant
  3. 3 Proper approach to balancing injustice in amendment applications

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by treating the risk of prejudice from unavailable subsidiary documents as outweighing the certain prejudice to ENRC from refusal of amendments, without sufficient evidence of actual prejudice to defendants. Amendments should be allowed at early quantum phase, with disclosure issues managed subsequently.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted for disputed amendments to ENRC's loss claims
  • Case to proceed to quantum phase with amendments