England and Wales Case Law

Treo Noal GP Sarl & Ors v Stefan Emanuel Kowski & Ors

The court ordered that the first trial shall deal with all issues except validity of claimants' standing, which will be addressed only if necessary after the main trial. No order was made for cyber security expert evidence or narrative documents at this stage. Disclosure and expert issues were clarified, with permission for separate experts and precise formulation of disclosure issues.

Source excerpt

• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Bribery
• Fiduciary duty
• Disclosure
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

Treo Noal GP S.à r.l & Ors v Stefan Emanuel Kowski & Ors

The court held that disclosure should be ordered on all key pleaded issues, applying the principles of proportionality and relevance under PD 57AD, and rejected inclusion of peripheral or non-material issues. Appropriate disclosure models were determined for each issue based on the nature and significance of the issue and the parties' positions.

Source excerpt

• Disclosure
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Bribery
• Valuation of assets
• Fund management

Read case analysis

Treo Noal GP SARL & Ors v Kowski & Ors

Treo Noal GP SARL & Ors v Kowski & Ors [2026] EWHC 487 (Comm) (26 February 2026)

Commercial Court disclosure guidance hearing applying PD 57AD to disputed issues on fraud, bribery, reliance, valuation, and ESG concerns.

• Disclosure
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Bribery
• Valuation of assets
• Fund management

Read case analysis

Treo Noal GP SARL & Ors v Kowski & Ors

Treo Noal GP SARL & Ors v Kowski & Ors [2026] EWHC 265 (Comm) (02 February 2026)

At a Commercial Court CMC, the court set case management directions in a fraud and conspiracy claim over NSO Group investment, limiting validity issues and refusing several disclosure and expert applications.

• Unlawful means conspiracy
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Bribery
• Fiduciary duties
• Disclosure
• Expert evidence

Read case analysis

Notus Group Limited v British Engineering Services Holdco Limited

The court found bribery-related warranty breaches in an SPA, assessed damages on a modified Scenario 1 basis, and dismissed a claim for investigation costs.

• Share purchase agreement
• Breach of warranty
• Bribery
• Damages
• Corporate acquisition
• Anti-bribery compliance

Read case analysis

Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse International & Ors (No. 13: Application by Privinvest Companies for Permission to Appeal)

Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse International & Ors (No. 13: Application by Privinvest Companies for Permission to Appeal) [2024] EWHC 3188 (Comm) (10 December 2024)

The High Court refused the Privinvest Companies permission to appeal, holding none of six proposed grounds had a real prospect of success. A conditional stay of enforcement was granted.

• Abuse of process
• Disclosure obligations
• Civil liability
• Bribery
• Corruption
• Causation

Read case analysis

Marcus Gervase Johnson v Firstrand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a Motonovo Finance

The Court of Appeal held that motor dealers acting as credit brokers owed consumers disinterested and fiduciary duties, and allowed secret-commission appeals.

• Secret commission
• Fiduciary duty
• Accessory liability
• Unfair relationship
• Consumer credit act 1974
• Disinterested duty

Read case analysis

Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Company Limited v James David Hadley & Ors

Mr Wright was entitled to a payment on account of costs, but at a reduced amount due to evidential deficiencies; Claimant's application to make Mr Wright jointly liable for CGrowth's costs was refused as CGrowth was the real party with multiple stakeholders and no impropriety was established; compound interest was granted on damages as defendants fell within the equitable fraud and fiduciary limbs, and joint and several liability applies to conspirators and dishonest assisters.

Source excerpt

• Costs
• Compound interest
• Director liability
• Bribery
• Conspiracy
• Fiduciary duty

Read case analysis

Various Claimants v Standard Chartered Plc

Brutus Allegations are adequately pleaded with sufficient evidential foundation and should proceed to trial; Maxpower non-executive directors cannot be PDMRs under s.90A FSMA unless pleaded as de facto directors, so allegations against them are struck out; individual reliance claims are properly pleaded with authority and statement of truth, and further particulars will be provided as case management directs; further information on standing, reliance, and loss to be provided by specified dates; no order for further particulars on Bank Knowledge Representations pending disclosure.

Source excerpt

• Issuer liability
• Misleading statements
• Sanctions compliance
• Bribery
• Reliance
• Strike out

Read case analysis

Commission Recovery Ltd v Marks & Clerk LLP & Anor

There is a common issue across the class regarding liability for secret commissions and breach of fiduciary duty, and no relevant conflict of interest; the claim is sufficiently pleaded for representative proceedings; the Court should not exercise its discretion to bar CRL from acting as representative as the litigation is not futile and common issues can be resolved on a representative basis.

Source excerpt

• Representative actions
• Secret commissions
• Bribery
• Fiduciary duties
• Disclosure and consent
• Class definition

Read case analysis