Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse International & Ors [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm) (03 December 2021)

Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse International & Ors [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm) (03 December 2021)

The claimant's claims are statute barred as it could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud and the involvement of the relevant parties prior to the limitation cut-off date. The structure of the transactions, the use of intermediaries, and the information available to the claimant after the Libyan revolution were sufficient to trigger an investigation and enable the claims to be pleaded before November 2013. The claimant has no realistic prospect of avoiding the limitation bar under s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980. Additionally, the claims against the second and third defendants fail on their merits as the claimant had no beneficial interest in the sums paid and...

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Libyan Investment Authority; First Defendant/applicant: Credit Suisse International; Second Defendant/applicant: GLG Partners Asset Management Limited; Third Defendant/applicant: Frontier Investment Management Partners Ltd; Fourth Defendant/applicant: Walid Mohamed Ali Al-Giahmi; Fifth Defendant/applicant: Lands Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (summary Judgment/strike Out and Jurisdiction Challenge) / Application for Summary Judgment and to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Claim dismissed as statute barred; summary judgment for first and second defendants; service out of jurisdiction set aside for third to fifth defendants.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Fraud, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction, Concealment, Bribery, Unjust Enrichment
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Fraud Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Concealment Bribery +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Libyan Investment Authority

Claimant/respondent

Credit Suisse International

First Defendant/applicant

GLG Partners Asset Management Limited

Second Defendant/applicant

Frontier Investment Management Partners Ltd

Third Defendant/applicant

Walid Mohamed Ali Al-Giahmi

Fourth Defendant/applicant

Lands Company Limited

Fifth Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (summary Judgment/strike Out and Jurisdiction Challenge) / Application for Summary Judgment and to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's claims are statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  2. 2 Whether s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 postpones the limitation period due to fraud or concealment
  3. 3 Whether the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud prior to the limitation cut-off date

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's claims are statute barred as it could with reasonable diligence have discovered the alleged fraud and the involvement of the relevant parties prior to the limitation cut-off date. The structure of the transactions, the use of intermediaries, and the information available to the claimant after the Libyan revolution were sufficient to trigger an investigation and enable the claims to be pleaded before November 2013. The claimant has no realistic prospect of avoiding the limitation bar under s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980. Additionally, the claims against the second and third defendants fail on their merits as the claimant had no beneficial interest in the sums paid and...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as statute barred; summary judgment for first and second defendants; service out of jurisdiction set aside for third to fifth defendants.

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted to first and second defendants.
  • Orders permitting service out of jurisdiction on third to fifth defendants set aside.