Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd & Anor v Protopapas & Ors (Rev2) [2025] EWHC 2706 (Ch) (20 October 2025)

Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd & Anor v Protopapas & Ors (Rev2) [2025] EWHC 2706 (Ch) (20 October 2025)

The English court will not restrain a party from settling foreign proceedings brought by a receiver whose authority is not recognised under English law, even if such settlement may aid the receiver's activities. De Beers is entitled to settle the South Carolina proceedings to mitigate commercial risk, and the injunction against the receiver should be varied to ensure De Beers is not at risk of contempt for doing so. The English court's declarations as to the receiver's lack of authority remain unaffected.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2706 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited; Claimant/applicant: Cape PLC; Respondent/defendant: Peter D. Protopapas; Respondent/defendant: Anglo American PLC; Respondent/defendant: De Beers PLC; Respondent/defendant: De Beers Centenary AG; Respondent/defendant: De Beers Consolidated Mines Proprietary Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: De Beers UK Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: De Beers Jewellers Ltd.; Respondent/defendant: De Beers Jewellers US, Inc.; Respondent/defendant/third Party Applicant: Anglo American US Holdings Inc; Respondent/defendant: Element Six US Corp.; Respondent/defendant: Element Six Technologies US Corp.; Respondent/defendant: Platinum Guild International (U.S.A.) Jewelry Inc.; Respondent/defendant: Lightbox Jewelry Inc.; Respondent/defendant: Forevermark US Inc.; Respondent/defendant: Anglo American Crop Nutrients (U.S.A.), LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Ongoing Chancery Division Proceedings / Application for Injunction and Variation of Injunction Prior to Foreign Trial
Outcome
CIHL's application for an injunction refused; De Beers' application for variation of injunction granted in part.
Legal Topics
Recognition of Foreign Receivership, Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Settlement of Foreign Proceedings, Authority of Agents, Tort of Acting Without Authority, Aiding and Abetting Contempt, Variation of Court Orders
Private International Law Company Law Civil Procedure Recognition of Foreign Receivership Injunctions Contempt of Court Settlement of Foreign Proceedings Authority of Agents +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited

Claimant/applicant

Cape PLC

Claimant/applicant

Peter D. Protopapas

Respondent/defendant

Anglo American PLC

Respondent/defendant

De Beers PLC

Respondent/defendant

De Beers Centenary AG

Respondent/defendant

De Beers Consolidated Mines Proprietary Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

De Beers UK Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

De Beers Jewellers Ltd.

Respondent/defendant

De Beers Jewellers US, Inc.

Respondent/defendant

Anglo American US Holdings Inc

Respondent/defendant/third Party Applicant

Element Six US Corp.

Respondent/defendant

Element Six Technologies US Corp.

Respondent/defendant

Platinum Guild International (U.S.A.) Jewelry Inc.

Respondent/defendant

Lightbox Jewelry Inc.

Respondent/defendant

Forevermark US Inc.

Respondent/defendant

Anglo American Crop Nutrients (U.S.A.), LLC

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in Ongoing Chancery Division Proceedings / Application for Injunction and Variation of Injunction Prior to Foreign Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether De Beers should be restrained from settling foreign proceedings with a receiver not recognised under English law
  2. 2 Whether the injunction against the receiver should be varied to protect De Beers from contempt
  3. 3 Whether entering into settlement aids and abets contempt or constitutes a tort

Ratio Decidendi

The English court will not restrain a party from settling foreign proceedings brought by a receiver whose authority is not recognised under English law, even if such settlement may aid the receiver's activities. De Beers is entitled to settle the South Carolina proceedings to mitigate commercial risk, and the injunction against the receiver should be varied to ensure De Beers is not at risk of contempt for doing so. The English court's declarations as to the receiver's lack of authority remain unaffected.

Court Disposition

CIHL's application for an injunction refused; De Beers' application for variation of injunction granted in part.

Orders

  • Refusal of injunction restraining De Beers from settling with Mr Protopapas.
  • Variation of injunction against Mr Protopapas to ensure De Beers is not at risk of contempt for entering into settlement.