Trafigura PTE Ltd & Anor v Prateek Gupta & Ors

Trafigura PTE Ltd & Anor v Prateek Gupta & Ors

The prejudice to the PT Defendants from refusing the amendments is outweighed by the prejudice to Trafigura and the risk to the trial date if the amendments were allowed. The amendments are late, would require significant additional disclosure and witness evidence, and are vague in their particulars. The PT Defendants did not discharge the heavy burden required to justify very late amendments.

Parties
Claimant: Trafigura Pte. Ltd.; Claimant: Trafigura India Pvt. Ltd.; Defendant: Prateek Gupta; Defendant: UIL (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.; Defendant: UIL Malaysia Ltd.; Defendant: TMT Metals A.G., Zug; Defendant: TMT Metals (UK) Ltd.; Defendant: Spring Metal Ltd.; Defendant: Mine Craft Ltd.; Defendant: New Alloys Trading Pte. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Fraud Claim / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Application for permission to amend Defence (Disputed Amendments) refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Disclosure, Fraud, Case Management
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Disclosure Fraud 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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafigura Pte. Ltd.

Claimant

Trafigura India Pvt. Ltd.

Claimant

Prateek Gupta

Defendant

UIL (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Defendant

UIL Malaysia Ltd.

Defendant

TMT Metals A.G., Zug

Defendant

TMT Metals (UK) Ltd.

Defendant

Spring Metal Ltd.

Defendant

Mine Craft Ltd.

Defendant

New Alloys Trading Pte. Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Fraud Claim / Interlocutory Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant permission for the PT Defendants to make the Disputed Amendments to their Defence
  2. 2 Whether the amendments are late and if so, whether justice requires they be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

The prejudice to the PT Defendants from refusing the amendments is outweighed by the prejudice to Trafigura and the risk to the trial date if the amendments were allowed. The amendments are late, would require significant additional disclosure and witness evidence, and are vague in their particulars. The PT Defendants did not discharge the heavy burden required to justify very late amendments.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to amend Defence (Disputed Amendments) refused

Orders

  • Permission to make the Disputed Amendments is refused