Blog
The International Data Insights Report: Trends in international arbitration
Mark Fallmann
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of April - June 2025.
Bribery
The Claimant in the behemoth case that is Public Institution for Social Security v Al-Wazzan was refused permission to amend its case mid-trial against the 15th to 19th Defendants. This is because such an amendment would have required further expert evidence on complex issues of Swiss law, the amendment was made late, and the 15th to 19th Defendants would be prejudiced by the late amendment. The Claimant was given permission to amend as against the 41st Defendant because the amendment was only minor and the 41st Defendant could easily understand the case against it. The Court also imposed certain restrictions on the cross examination of one of the 15th to 19th Defendants’ witnesses based on the way the case had been pleaded, limiting questioning about the dishonesty of various parties and the falsity of certain documents.
Contempt
An arrest warrant was issued for the contemnor in Al Jaber v Al Ibrahim after he had failed not only to give asset disclosure as ordered, but also to attend for cross examination. Medical evidence submitted by him to support an application to adjourn cross examination was insufficient. The contemnor had breached the suspended committal order in two ways and it was right that an arrest warrant be granted.
The Court of Appeal in Aslani v Sobierajska confirmed that the relevant issues for the Court to consider on a contempt application were (a) whether the order had been served and (b) whether the alleged contemnor had subsequently done something prohibited by the order.
In Isbilen v Turk (which also featured in my Civil Fraud Updates of Q1 2024 and Q2 2024) the Court considered the recoverability of Legal Aid costs incurred in civil committal proceedings. A Recovery of Defence Costs Order was made, but suspended until after determination of various proprietary claims, and the removal of a freezing injunction.
The Court of Appeal in Turner v Coates considered the interaction of civil and criminal contempt proceedings. The appeal was against an order made in the civil contempt proceedings committing the appellant to prison for 448 days for contempt of Court. There was no general principle that it would be unjust for there to be parallel proceedings for civil and criminal contempt. Any potential injustice could be dealt with at sentencing by ensuring that the second Court was fully appraised of the first sentence.
The Court of Appeal also considered issues of contempt in Yaxley-Lennon v Solicitor General. In this case the appellant appealed against an 18-month custodial sentence on the basis that the prison conditions were substantially worse than had been anticipated by the judge who imposed the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.
Fraudulent trading
In Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd the Supreme Court upheld the decision that third parties (i.e. parties who had not been involved in managing the defendant company) who had participated in, facilitated or assisted fraudulent transactions by a company when they knew that the business was being carried on for fraudulent purposes could be found liable for fraudulent trading under s.213 Insolvency Act 1986.
Freezing injunctions
The Court in Segulah Medical Acceleration AB v Tripathi found that an injunction granted by the Court in the British Virgin Islands was not similar to an order enforcing a freezing injunction, did not amount to enforcement of a worldwide freezing injunction and therefore did not breach a non-enforcement undertaking.
Proprietary injunctions
The Defendant in Axion Marketing Ltd v Harmouhan Lal applied to discharge a proprietary injunction over various crypto wallets. The Court refused to grant the application: there was a serious issue to be tried, which the Court could not resolve at that hearing, service was found to have been effective and the Defendant’s complaints about a failure of full and frank disclosure were not upheld.
Tax
The Court of Appeal considered a question of issue estoppel in Skatteforvaltningen v MCML Ltd (formerly ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd). The Appellant (MCML) appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim on the basis that it was brought in breach of the revenue rule (that the English court will not entertain a claim by a foreign state to collect its own tax). The Respondent was precluded from asserting that the revenue rule did not apply to its claims against the Appellant in so far as those claims were based on tax vouchers. However, in so far as the Respondent was pleading fraud, it was not an abuse of process, and there was a public interest in bringing fraud to light.
Unjust enrichment
The Claimant in Rasmala Trade Finance Fund v Trafigura Pte Ltd failed in its claim for restitution of mistaken payments made to the Defendant pursuant to forged documents. The Defendant had been enriched by the payments, but as a result of receipt of those payments had changed its position and acted to its own detriment in good faith.
About the author
Mary Young is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution team. Her practice covers a wide range of areas but Mary’s particular interests and expertise lie in civil fraud and asset tracing as well as claims against professionals in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust.
Latest blogs & news
The International Data Insights Report: Trends in international arbitration
Two recent publications, the Law Society’s International Data Insights Report 2025 and Queen Mary University’s (“QMU”) International Arbitration Survey, analyse statistics concerning international arbitration and reaffirm London’s leading role in global dispute resolution.
Practical tips for trustees dealing with breach of trust allegations
Being a trustee carries significant responsibilities and often involves managing high value assets and making complex decisions in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. While trustees generally strive to act with care and integrity, allegations of breach of trust can arise. Whilst such allegations can be stressful and complex, how trustees manage the trust and how they respond to allegations is crucial to maintaining trust, protecting the trust’s assets, and avoiding potential contentious proceedings.
The tips below should generally be adopted through the life of the trust and may avoid disputes arising in the first place.
Civil Fraud Case Update: Q3 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of July - September 2025.
UAE agrees to share crypto information with international tax authorities
The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has joined in global efforts to improve transparency and compliance in the crypto sector by signing the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). The framework is expected to be rolled out in UAE in 2027, with the first automatic exchanges of information with other tax authorities such as HMRC taking place in 2028.
HMRC Covid scheme amnesty: action by 31 December 2025
The COVID pandemic was a difficult time for businesses, and many legitimately relied on financial support provided through government schemes to help them to survive and retain employees. However, it is estimated by HMRC that circa £10billion was also lost as a result of incorrect applications and outright fraud.
‘No win, no fee’ - are clients being hoodwinked?
At a time when a national broadcaster feels obliged to unpick (for the lawyer in us: alleged) misleading information from the leader of the free world, I almost choked on my breakfast when reading that we should also be concerned that some of us lawyers may be misleading the public too: 'No win, no fee' under fire: SRA vows to stop law firms hoodwinking consumers | Law Gazette Why now is a mystery; the term has been a feature of daytime TV advertising for decades!
Crypto reporting is changing: what this means for you - and HMRC
As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, two major frameworks are set to reshape how crypto-assets are reported: the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) and the European Union’s Directive on Administration Cooperation in taxation (“DAC8”).
Supreme Court clarifies VAT group rules in Prudential v HMRC
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
The headlines this week around former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are a reminder of the importance of taking the right advice from appropriate professionals and the potential consequences when such advice is called into question.
Civil Fraud case update Q2 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of April - June 2025.
Oral evidence series Part 6: Is an honest recollection of events truly evidence?
Judicial commentary shows that judges are exceedingly aware of the unreliability of witnesses’ memory when considering evidence at trial. While judges may take differing views as to the reliance that ought to be placed on oral evidence as compared to contemporaneous documents, procedural safeguards are now in place to help strengthen the reliability of witness evidence, in CPR Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts (“PD 57AC”).
Privilege update: Privy Council confirms the shareholder principle no longer applies in England & Wales
We have previously written about the potential death of the shareholder principle in our previous blogs. The recent Privy Council decision in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 confirms what we suspected; the shareholder principle no longer exists in England & Wales.
Oral Evidence Series Part 5: How Does Oral Evidence Differ in Arbitration Proceedings compared to Court?
We all know that arbitration and litigation are governed by different rules which dictate the way disputes are dealt with and the way that hearings proceed. One perhaps surprising difference, however, is the approach to oral evidence.
Oral evidence part 4: Issues with expert evidence
Issues with expert evidence can have a profound impact on the credibility of a party’s case, and consequently the likelihood or not of a party succeeding at trial. In this article we discuss some recent case law which highlights the need for parties to carefully comply with their procedural obligations regarding expert evidence, namely Part 35 of the CPR (“Part 35”) and the accompanying Practice Direction, to avoid such risks.
Oral evidence part 3: What is the role of a liquidator in giving evidence?
One of the key duties of a liquidator is to investigate the affairs of the insolvent company to determine whether its demise resulted from the acts (or omissions) of its directors or third parties against whom claims may be brought to obtain redress for losses suffered by the Company. This article focuses on claims initiated by the liquidator themselves, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of the company, and considers the weight that will be given to the liquidator’s evidence.
Oral evidence part 2: What if a witness doesn’t turn up to court?
Where a party wishes to rely on a witness statement at trial, Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 32.5 provides that they must call the witness to give oral evidence unless the court orders otherwise, or notice is provided of the intention to rely on the statement as hearsay evidence.
One of the issues that may arise during litigation is a witness failing to turn up at court to give evidence.
Oral evidence part 1: Giving evidence abroad in the First-tier Tax Tribunal
In an ideal world, witnesses providing evidence in First-tier Tax Tribunal proceedings would do so in person at a hearing. It is often easier to build a rapport with the Judge in person, you avoid technical issues, and however informal the Tax Tribunal is in comparison to the civil courts, there is something to be said about looking into the whites of a witness’s eyes during a cross examination.
The future of will disputes part 4: Challenging validity based on capacity
For a will to be valid, the testator must have had testamentary capacity at the time it was made. Testamentary capacity refers to the mental ability of the testator to make a valid will.
Counting the cost of the UK tax system
Waqar Shah, a Partner at Kingsley Napley, takes a closer look at the recent report by the Committee of Public Accounts on the cost of the tax system.
The future of will disputes part three: challenging validity based on forgery and fraud
When a loved one dies, the terms of their will can sometimes surprise surviving family members, with unexpected beneficiaries or unequal distribution of the estate. In England and Wales, individuals have the freedom to leave their estate to anyone, with no legal obligation to provide for specific family members. Even if the will seems unfair, the law generally upholds the testator's wishes, if the will has been validly made. However, certain family members and dependants may be able to bring a claim against the estate (under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975), if adequate provision has not been made for them under a will.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print