Civil Fraud Case Update: Q2 2026

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in Logix Aero Ireland Ltd v Siam Aero Repair Co Ltd.  The issue related to whether the intervention of a fraudster broke the chain of causation in a breach of contract claim.  The Court of Appeal said that there could be more than one effective cause of loss and that an intervening event would break the chain of causation only if it destroyed the wrongdoing of the defendant.  Even where one cause of loss might be considered to have less of an effect, it remains a cause of loss.  However, in this case, the fraud occurred before any breach of contract and the fraud had been the cause of not only the loss, but the breach of contract itself.  The fraud had therefore destroyed the causative potency of the breach.

In Lux Films Ltd v Fowler the Court considered the criminal principle that a company and its sole director cannot form a conspiracy and confirmed that this principle did not apply to the civil tort of unlawful means conspiracy.  Civil liability was concerned with the combination of two or more legal persons performing the act and causing the injury, whereas criminal liability focused on the agreement to commit an offence.

I have written about Gill v Kaur previously, most recently in early 2025, in the latest iteration the Court confirmed that a failure to publish a judgment relating to sentencing on the judiciary’s website was not a basis for challenging a committal order.  The requirement for contempt proceedings to be held in public and a reasoned public judgment given, applied to the decision relating to the finding of contempt but not to an application to activate the suspension of a sentence.

In Khan v North of England Coachworks Ltd, which I wrote about in 2020, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against an immediate six month custodial sentence for contempt relating to the breach of a court order.  The breach was deliberate, the contemnor had a previous contempt conviction, and when questioned about it the contemnor had provided false evidence and attempted to conceal the breach.

In the second reported case within the Magomedov v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP proceedings to appear in this quarter, the Court considered whether interim costs orders and security for the difference between the interim payment and the costs likely to be payable were mutually exclusive.  The Court confirmed that unless a receiving party raises the issue of both applications at the consequentials hearing, the Court is entitled to interpret a single request for an interim payment as an election to seek an interim payment rather than security.  The cases in which both were granted would be exceedingly rare.

In Magomedov v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP which I have previously written about the Court of Appeal, having previously refused permission to appeal, also refused an application to reopen that decision.  The application was made under CPR 52.30 and the Court of Appeal confirmed that this rule could only be used in exceptional circumstances and only applied where the integrity of the appeal process had been undermined.  In this case, the complaints were about whether the Court of Appeal decision was correct, rather than whether the integrity of the appeal process had been undermined, and as such it was not necessary to reopen the permission to appeal decision.

The Court of Appeal in Titan Wealth Services Ltd v Tavistock Investments Plc overturned an order granting an application to amend a defence and counterclaim to bring a counterclaim for breach of confidence.  Whilst it was possible that there was a viable claim, the counterclaim as pleaded was incoherent, contradictory and not properly particularised.  It was not the Court of Appeal’s role to reformulate or salvage parts of the pleading.

In MA Fastmove Ltd v Global Billpay Private Ltd the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against summary judgment where the determination of an issue of breach of contract against one defendant created a risk of injustice where the issue of breach was open for another defendant to raise at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in Kolomoisky v JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank and Bogolyubov v JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank.  The original pleaded case had been abandoned and a new defence of repayment had been raised for the first time in closing submissions and was completely unpleaded.  The evidence provided was insufficient to establish that the bank had elected to treat liabilities as discharged.

The Commercial Court in BB Energy (Gulf) DMCC v South Sudan considered whether to allow applications made by interveners in an action to fortify a cross undertaking in damages.  The Court refused the applications on the basis that there was no good arguable case that the injunction would cause the interveners loss by preventing South Sudan from performing contracts, and no evidence that South Sudan was going to default on obligations.

In Global Asset Portfolio Ltd v Fazriki Ltd the Commercial Court dismissed the defendant’s application to discharge a freezing injunction.  The defendant had failed to address the issue of risk of dissipation and since the claimant had demonstrated a good arguable case, it was just and convenient for the injunction to remain in place.

Similarly in the case of High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading & Marketing Ltd the Technology and Construction Court dismissed the defendant’s application to discharge a freezing injunction.  Whilst the claimant had failed to obtain summary judgment, the Court continued the injunction on the basis that the defendant had failed to comply with disclosure requirements and the claimant had a good arguable case.

The Supreme Court considered the case of Skatteforvaltningen v MCML Ltd and determined that the Court of Appeal had been incorrect to determine that the Danish Tax Authority was barred by issue estoppel from bringing further claims against a defendant it had already pursued.  The Court of Appeal had wrongly expanded the scope of issue estoppel: the first claim related to negligent misrepresentation whereas the new claims alleged that the misrepresentation had been fraudulently made.

The Court ordered disclosure of certain documents in UK Insurance Limited v Mr Bahader Hassankhail on the basis that the iniquity exception to privilege applied.  The case itself involves a claim to set aside an order made in 2022 on the basis that it had been procured by fraud.  The Court considered whether a prima facie case had been made out which allowed a conclusion that iniquity existed, and found, on the basis of the evidence presented that it had.  The Court made it clear that its decision was not intended to bind the trial judge as it had been reached without the benefit of a full trial and without the evidence being tested.

In White v Uber London Ltd the Commercial Court ordered the disclosure of certain documents produced when a litigation funder engaged solicitors to investigate a potential claim.  The funder was not conducting the litigation itself, but rather deciding whether to fund litigation.  As such communications with the funder were not created for the dominant purpose of conducting litigation, litigation privilege did not apply.

The Court of Appeal confirmed, in Song v Smith that a breach of fiduciary duty in a quasi-partnership did not automatically give rise to a claim for unfair prejudice.

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.