Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 516 (30 April 2026)

Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 516 (30 April 2026)

The application to reopen the refusal of permission to appeal was dismissed because the appellate judge had sufficiently grappled with all essential grounds, made no exceptional or material error undermining the integrity of the process, and the circumstances were not exceptional as required by CPR 52.30. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Civ 516
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors; Defendants/respondents: TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Reopen Refusal of Permission to Appeal Under CPR 52.30
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Permission to Appeal, Fair Presentation, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Jurisdiction Unlawful Means Conspiracy Summary Judgment Strike Out Permission to Appeal Fair Presentation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors

Claimants/appellants

TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Reopen Refusal of Permission to Appeal Under CPR 52.30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should reopen the refusal of permission to appeal under CPR 52.30
  2. 2 Whether the appellate judge failed to grapple with the grounds of appeal or made an exceptional error undermining the process
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of the duty of fair presentation by the claimants in ex parte applications

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reopen the refusal of permission to appeal was dismissed because the appellate judge had sufficiently grappled with all essential grounds, made no exceptional or material error undermining the integrity of the process, and the circumstances were not exceptional as required by CPR 52.30. The applicants' arguments amounted to disagreement with the outcome rather than demonstrating a critical failure of process or real injustice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to reopen refusal of permission to appeal under CPR 52.30 is dismissed.