Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Waksman |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 3280 (Comm) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Claim No: CL-2017-000583 |
(“the 2017 Action”)
and
(“the 2019 Action”)
and
[2023] EWHC 3280 (Comm)
THE HON. Mr Justice Waksman
Claim No: CL-2017-000583
Claim No: CL-2019-000644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
Representation:
Clare Montgomery KC, Nathan Pillow KC, Anna Boase KC, Jack Rivett and Freddie Popplewell, (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP, Solicitors) for the Claimants
Richard Millett KC, Michael Bools KC, Edward Harrison and Mark Belshaw (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP, Solicitors) for the First Defendant in the 2017 Action and the Third Party in the 2019 Action
Michal Hain (instructed by Charles Fussell & Co LLP, Solicitors) for the Second Defendant in the 2017 Action and the Fourth Party in the 2019 Action
Simon Colton KC, James Segan KC, Rachel Scott, Tom Richards, Joyce Arnold, George Molyneaux and Tom Lowenthal (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP, Solicitors) for the Third Party in the 2017 Action and the Defendants in the 2019 Action
Hearing dates: 6–9 and 13–16 March 2023
Table of Contents
| INTRODUCTION | 7 |
| THE PHASE 1 JUDGMENT | 7 |
| The Claims: Dechert and Mr Gerrard | 9 |
| The Claims: the SFO | 10 |
| Findings in the Judgment: Dechert and Mr Gerrard | 10 |
| Findings in the Judgment: the SFO | 11 |
| THE PHASE 1A TRIAL | 13 |
| Introduction | 13 |
| 2017 Claim Issues | 14 |
| 2019 Claim Issues | 15 |
| THE PARTIES' POSITIONS IN OUTLINE | 16 |
| Further Statements of Case | 16 |
| Breaches of Duty Relied Upon by ENRC for the Purposes of its Damages Claim | 17 |
| Enrc's Claims for Losses Arising from Unnecessary Work, Unnecessary Costs and Wasted | |
| Management Time | 18 |
| Contribution | 20 |
| The Criminal Investigation | 20 |
| Exemplary Damages | 20 |
| STRUCTURE OF THIS JUDGMENT | 21 |
| ENRC'S METHODOLOGY FOR CAUSATION AND LOSS ON THE PRIMARY CLAIMS | 22 |
| Causation Counterfactuals | 22 |
| Quantum: Unnecessary Work | 23 |
| Period up to 17 May 2012 (“the Earlier Period”) | 23 |
| Period after 17 May 2012 (“the Later Period”) | 25 |
| Quantum: Unnecessary Costs | 26 |
| Quantum: WMT | 26 |
| DECHERT'S METHODOLOGY FOR CAUSATION AND LOSS ON THE PRIMARY CLAIMS | 27 |
| Introduction | 27 |
| Causation Points | 27 |
| Quantum: Unnecessary Work | 28 |
| Earlier Period | 28 |
| Later Period | 31 |
| Quantum: Unnecessary Costs | 32 |
| Quantum: WMT | 32 |
| THE LAW | 32 |
| Assessment of Factual Causation | 32 |
| Inducement to Breach of Contract and Causation | 37 |
| Remoteness: Reasonable Foreseeability | 40 |
| The requirement of reasonable foreseeability | 40 |
| Reasonable foreseeability and knowledge of probable loss | 41 |
| Remoteness: Novus Actus Interveniens | 42 |
| Failure to Mitigate | 42 |
| Determining Quantum and the Broad Brush | 42 |
| Other Points of Law | 43 |
| FACTUAL CAUSATION AS AGAINST THE SFO GENERALLY | 43 |
| Introduction | 43 |
| The SFO'S Primary Case | 44 |
| The SFO'S Secondary Case | 46 |
| Presence of the DCs in the Counterfactual | 46 |
| The Feedback Loop | 47 |
| Prior breaches of duty on the part of Dechert | 51 |
| A Proportionate Approach by the SFO | 51 |
| Information and Materials available to the SFO in the counterfactual | 52 |
| General Conclusion on the SFO's Secondary Case | 58 |
| FACTUAL CAUSATION AS AGAINST DECHERT GENERALLY | 59 |
| FACTUAL CAUSATION: THE CHRONOLOGY | 63 |
| Introduction | 63 |
| Period 1 — 17 August – 31 December 2011 | 65 |
| Period 2 — 1 January – 31 May 2012 | 66 |
| Period 3 — 1 June – 30 November 2012 | 71 |
| Period 4 — 1 December 2012 – 13 March 2013 | 80 |
| Period 5 — 14 – 31 March 2013 | 84 |
| THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION | 88 |
| Introduction | 88 |
| The Chronology | 92 |
| The Status and Import of the CEB and CAN | 103 |
| Introduction | 103 |
| The CAN and the Reasons Email | 103 |
| The CEB | 107 |
| Conclusion | 108 |
| Events in 2013 Prior to the 17 April Meeting | 108 |
| The 21 January Meeting | 109 |
| The Kazakhstan report | 109 |
| DC25 | 110 |
| 27 March meeting, the s2A Notice and Dechert's Dismissal | 110 |
| The Position of Mr Dalman | 111 |
| Dealings with Fulcrum in April | 111 |
| Conclusion. | 111 |
| Other Material | 112 |
| DCs other than the IDCs (“the Other DCs”) | 112 |
| The OMs | 112 |
| Press Articles | 112 |
| Global Witness | 112 |
| Intelligence referred to in the CEB | 113 |
| The RAID report | 113 |
| The Depel Interview | 114 |
| The other s2A interviews | 114 |
| SARs | 115 |
| The SFO'S Alternative Case on Making the CI Decision | 115 |
| Resignations | 115 |
| Addleshaw Goddard | 116 |
| Failure to produce an Africa report | 116 |
| Conclusion | 117 |
| Overall Conclusion | 117 |
| DEFENCES RAISED BY THE SFO | 117 |
| Introduction | 117 |
| The Expansion Point | 119 |
| The Workstreams Point | 120 |
| Conclusion | 121 |
| Remoteness: Novus Actus Interveniens | 121 |
| Failure to Mitigate on the Part of ENRC | 121 |
| APPROACH TO THE DETERMINATION OF QUANTUM | 122 |
| General Approach on Unnecessary Work | 122 |
| General Approach on Unnecessary Costs | 123 |
| Objection by the SFO to ENRC'S Approach on Quantum | 123 |
| SFO Objection Based on Payments by ENRC Management (UK) Limited | 124 |
| QUANTUM ANALYSIS: UNNECESSARY WORK IN THE EARLIER PERIOD ON KAZAKHSTAN AND AFRICA | 127 |
| Introduction | 127 |
| Kazakhstan — Reason 1A | 128 |
| Farm | 128 |
| Procurement | 129 |
| Iran | 131 |
| Education | 132 |
| Stripping | 132 |
| Kazakhstan — Reason 1B | 133 |
| Documentary Review, it Issues and Other Unnecessary Work (“Document Review”) — Reason 2 | 133 |
| Internal — Reason 3 | 136 |
| Unclear — Reason 4 | 138 |
| Sanctions – (after 5 March 2012) Reason 5 | 139 |
| Disproportionate Requests — Reason 7 | 140 |
| Chambishi — Reason 6 | 140 |
| Footnote 4 | 144 |
| QUANTUM: UNNECESSARY WORK IN THE LATER PERIOD ON KAZAKHSTAN | 144 |
| QUANTUM: UNNECESSARY WORK IN THE LATER PERIOD ON AFRICA | 146 |
| Introduction | 146 |
| Africa Whistleblower | 147 |
| Camrose and Camec | 147 |
| Books and Records | 149 |
| Data Protection | 149 |
| General Bribery | 149 |
| It Issues | 149 |
| Multiple | 150 |
| Red Flags | 150 |
| Sanctions | 151 |
| QUANTUM: UNNECESSARY WORK IN THE LATER PERIOD ON BOTH | 151 |
| Data Protection | 151 |
| Enrc Raid Training | 151 |
| It Issues | 151 |
| Multiple | 151 |
| Remedial Actions | 151 |
| QUANTUM: UNNECESSARY COSTS | 152 |
| Introduction | 152 |
| Addleshaw Goddard | 152 |
| Introduction | 152 |
| AG's Secondment Costs | 153 |
| AG's Investigation Work | 155 |
| Bridge 2 (“B2”) | 156 |
| Introduction | 156 |
| FRA | 159 |
| Introduction | 159 |
| Dechert Reason 1 | 162 |
| Dechert Reason 2 | 162 |
| Dechert Reason 3 | 163 |
| Dechert Reason 4 | 163 |
| Dechert Reason 5 | 164 |
| Dechert Reason 6 | 164 |
| HS | 165 |
| Introduction | 165 |
| Dechert Reason 1 | 166 |
| Dechert Reason 2 | 167 |
| Dechert Reason 3 | 167 |
| Dechert Reason 4 | 169 |
| Dechert Reason 5 | 169 |
| Dechert Reason 6 | 171 |
| Dechert Reason 7 | 172 |
| Dechert Reason 8 | 173 |
| Conclusions on HS Costs | 173 |
| KPMG | 173 |
| PWC | 174 |
| The Risk Advisory Group (“Trag”) | 175 |
| WASTED MANAGEMENT TIME | 176 |
| CONTRIBUTION | 180 |
| Introduction | 180 |
| The Law | 180 |
| Apportionment | 181 |
| EXEMPLARY DAMAGES | 183 |
| CONCLUSIONS | 184 |
INTRODUCTION
This case consists of two actions brought by the Claimant, Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Limited (“ENRC”) which have been managed together for some considerable time, and which have now been tried together. In the first action (“the 2017 Action”), ENRC made claims against two Defendants. The First Defendant, Dechert LLP (“Dechert”), is a well-known firm of solicitors. The Second Defendant, Neil Gerrard, is a solicitor now retired from practice. Between 23 April 2011 and 31 December 2020, he was a Partner in Dechert. Before that, he was a Partner in DLA Piper UK LLP (“DLA”), which he joined in 1995. Where it is appropriate to refer to both defendants together, I shall refer to them as the Dechert Defendants – (“the DDs”). Later in this judgment, and in particular where I am referring to submissions made by Dechert but which are also adopted by Mr Gerrard, I shall refer simply to Dechert. The context will make clear when that is.
In the second action (“the 2019 Action”), ENRC brought claims against the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (“the SFO”). The SFO was joined into the 2017 Action as a third party by Dechert. Conversely, the DDs were joined into the 2019 Action as third and fourth parties by the SFO.
The events to which this case relates occurred principally between December 2010 and June 2013. Between 24 December 2010 and 22 April 2011, DLA was retained by ENRC, principally acting by Mr Gerrard. Between 23 April 2011 and 27 March 2013, Dechert was retained by ENRC, again, principally acting by Mr Gerrard.
This is my judgment following the second trial in these proceedings. This trial has been concerned with questions of causation and loss. I refer to it as “the Phase...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Autostore Technology as v Ocado Group Plc
... ... Natural and legal persons shall have the possibility of preventing ... ...
-
Gilead Sciences Inc. (a company registered in the US State of Delaware) v Nucana Plc
... ... These are compounds which are similar to natural nucleosides but which are modified so that, by one or more ... I accept that it is likely that the effort and resources deployed were limited and the experience of those involved ... ...
-
Athene Holding Ltd v Imran Siddique, Stephen Cernich and Caldera Holdings Ltd
...Foster Bryant Surveying Ltd. v. Bryant [2007] 2 B.C.L.C. 239 at [47]; Eurasian Natural Resources Corp Ltd. v. Dechert LLP [2023] E.W.H.C. 3280 (Comm) [2023] E.W.H.C. 3280 (Comm) and the Recovery Partners GP Ltd. v. Rukhadze 265 Ms. Lucas KC also submitted that a split trial has cost savin......
-
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office
... ... The Claimant thus relied on Butcher J in ENRC v Dechert LLP, Gerrard & the Director of the SFO [2020] EWHC 1002 (Comm) at [92]: “ Depending on the case, it may also be desirable for an additional ‘clear explanation’ (to use the words of Sir Geoffrey Vos C in UTB v Sheffield United ) of the claim of entitlement to redact also to ... ...