Sucden Financial Limited v TMT Metals AG & Ors

Sucden Financial Limited v TMT Metals AG & Ors

There is a good arguable case that the claims against Mr Gupta fall within CPR PD 6B 3.1(9) as damage was sustained in England, and England is clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum. The requirements for service out of the jurisdiction and for alternative service are met. The challenge to jurisdiction and service fails.

Parties
Claimant: Sucden Financial Limited; First Defendant: TMT Metals AG; Second Defendant: Prateek Gupta; Third Defendant: Mine Craft Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Set Aside Service Orders
Outcome
Application to set aside service orders dismissed; jurisdiction upheld.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Alternative Service, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Conspiracy, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Private International Law Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Alternative Service Fraudulent Misrepresentation Conspiracy +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sucden Financial Limited

Claimant

TMT Metals AG

First Defendant

Prateek Gupta

Second Defendant

Mine Craft Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil Claim / Jurisdictional Challenge and Application to Set Aside Service Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English Court has jurisdiction over the Second Defendant (Mr Gupta)
  2. 2 Whether service out of the jurisdiction and by alternative means was proper
  3. 3 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried against Mr Gupta in tort (deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy)

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case that the claims against Mr Gupta fall within CPR PD 6B 3.1(9) as damage was sustained in England, and England is clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum. The requirements for service out of the jurisdiction and for alternative service are met. The challenge to jurisdiction and service fails.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside service orders dismissed; jurisdiction upheld.

Orders

  • Permission for service out of the jurisdiction on Mr Gupta confirmed.
  • Order for alternative service on Mr Gupta confirmed.