8th October 2025
The Commercial Court has issued its decision in Sucden Financial Limited v (1) TMT Metals AG, (2) Prateek Gupta, (3) Mine Craft Limited [2025] EWHC 2006 (Comm). This was an application by Mr Gupta contesting the English court’s jurisdiction and applying for the set-aside of an order granting permission for alternative service.
Sucden Financial Limited (a derivatives and commodities broker incorporated in England & Wales) brought a claim against Mr Gupta alleging deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy. Sucden claimed the courts of England and Wales had jurisdiction in this claim on the basis of CPR PD6B gateways 3.1(3) and 3.1(9). Sucden alleged that it was induced by TMT, Mr Gupta and Mine Craft Limited to refrain from taking enforcement action against TMT in respect of unpaid margin calls on a futures and options trading facility, and in that connection to rely upon a bill of lading for containers of nickel as security. A Memorandum of Deposit in favour of Sucden was signed by Mr Gupta, for TMT, in respect of that bill. This document contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of England.
Sucden alleged that when the containers were opened in Shanghai, having been shipped there from Rotherdam, they did not contain nickel. Sucden claimed US $6,746,847.45 from each of the Defendants.
In respect of CPR PD6B 3.1(9), Knowles J found the court had jurisdiction as part of Sucden’s alleged damage was sustained within the jurisdiction at an alleged meeting between the Claimant and representatives of TMT (including Mr Gupta) in London in 2022. Knowles J found that on the allegations made, the alleged meeting in England caused Sucden, itself in England, to continue to wait rather than act to enforce its debt against TMT, including through proceedings here.
In respect of gateway CPR PD6B 3.1(3), Sucden alleged that it was entitled to rely upon this gateway as Mr Gupta was a “necessary or proper party” to the claim against TMT. Sucden had served TMT in reliance upon CPR 6.11(1) and clause 26.3 of the Memorandum of Deposit which permitted Sucden to serve proceedings on TMT upon an agent within the jurisdiction. TMT accepted jurisdiction.
The Second Defendant challenged service upon TMT on the basis that CPR 6.11(1) permits service only where the claim started is “a claim solely in respect of” the contract containing the term for service on an agent (that is, here, the Memorandum).
Knowles J found that a challenge to service upon TMT was relevant to Mr Gupta as Sucden was relying upon CPR PD 6B 3.1(3). As a result of his decision on CPR PD6B 3.1(9) however, Knowles J found that he did not need to come to a conclusion on gateway 3.1(3) but noted that the “careful” points made by the Second Defendant appeared to “present arguable obstacles to reliance on that gateway”.
The court also considered whether there was a serious issue to be tried and forum non conveniens. Whilst finding that the facts of the case involved “a number of jurisdictions in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East”, Knowles J was satisfied that there was a serious issue to be tried on the merits and that England was the most appropriate forum for the case.
The application to set aside the order granting permission for alternative service was refused on the grounds that this would cause delay and that the overriding objective was best served by keeping the order in place.
Mr Gupta was represented by Samantha O’Brien O’Reilly, instructed by Preston Turnbull LLP.
To read a full copy of the judgment, please see here.
Would you like to know more?
For help and advice talk to a member of our clerking team. They can advise on the best options for your matter.
Call: +44 (0) 20 7842 5555
