Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS) LP & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application under CPR 52.30 seeking to reopen an appellate judge's refusal (the PTA Decision) to grant permission to appeal from a first instance judgment dated 17 January 2025. The first instance judge (Judge Bright) heard extended inter partes hearings over two tranches (September and November 2024) concerning claims by multiple claimants (the Appellants) that two conspiracies resulted in the loss of their interests in two valuable Russian port businesses. Claimant 1 (C1) is a Russian national who has been imprisoned in Russia since 2018 and is said to have been deprived of those interests by conspiracies involving various defendants. The pleadings asserted an "NCSP conspiracy" and a "FESCO conspiracy" (each involving extensive multi-step transactions and multiple defendants). There are 22 defendants (D1–D22). The first instance judgment determined a series of jurisdictional, strike-out and summary judgment applications and refused many of the Appellants' claims or permission to serve out of the jurisdiction in respect of some defendants. The Appellants sought permission to appeal (23 grounds). That permission to appeal was refused by the appellate judge (the PTA Decision). The Appellants then applied under CPR 52.30 to reopen the PTA Decision. This judgment (by Judge Moylan and Judge Miles) disposes of that CPR 52.30 application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the CPR 52.30 criteria for reopening a final determination of an application for permission to appeal are satisfied (necessity to avoid real injustice; exceptional circumstances; no alternative effective remedy).
2. Whether the appellate judge who refused permission to appeal failed to "grapple with" essential points raised by the Appellants or made an exceptional error corrupting the integrity of the PTA Decision (applying the guidance in Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group Plc).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The appellate judge failed to apply correctly the legal principles on interlocutory evaluation and unlawful means conspiracy, instead conducting a mini-trial and reaching final factual conclusions.
• The judge at first instance improperly "disaggregated" or treated transaction steps in isolation rather than assessing the alleged conspiracies in the round, leading to erroneous conclusions on serious issue to be tried (grounds 1–6, FESCO-related).
• The PTA Decision failed to grapple with important fair-presentation issues in relation to the NCSP conspiracy, including three distinct heads of fair presentation and the interaction with an abuse of process point (ground 11), such that reopening is necessary to avoid real injustice.
• There were other compelling reasons to hear an appeal, including important and unsettled legal points and alleged case-management influence on factual conclusions.

Respondents' Position

• The Respondents did not appear at the oral hearing; several submitted short written representations objecting to the CPR 52.30 application. The PTA Decision was properly reasoned and the appellate judge addressed the key points; no exceptional failing was shown.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded under the Mariana framework. It reviewed the PTA Decision to determine whether the appellate judge (Judge Males) had grappled with the essential points raised by the Appellants and, if so, whether any mistake was of an exceptional character that corrupted the PTA Decision such that there is a powerful probability of a different outcome. The court found that the appellate judge had considered the first instance judgment carefully, understood its structure and the interrelation of grounds, and had read the Appellants' 87-page skeleton.

On the FESCO-related grounds (grounds 1–10) the court accepted the appellate judge's approach: the appellate judge had correctly identified and applied the legal principles for strike-out/reverse summary judgment, serious issue to be tried on jurisdictional challenge, unlawful means conspiracy and pleading inferences. The court rejected the Appellants' contention that the judge at first instance had improperly siloed transactions or conducted a mini‑trial such that the appellate judge failed to grapple with the point. The court concluded that the appellate judge had grappled with the disaggregation complaint and that the complaint was essentially a challenge to the correctness of the appellate decision rather than proof of a corrupting procedural error; there was no powerful probability that a different result would have followed.

On the jurisdictional gateway challenges (grounds 7–8) the court agreed with the appellate judge that the English-law contract gateway did not apply (contracts were background only) and that the necessary/proper party gateway rejection was a rational evaluative judgment by the first instance judge on connections between the two conspiracies and case-management considerations.

On the NCSP-related fair presentation grounds the court analysed the first instance judge's findings that the Appellants had breached their duty of fair presentation in the ex parte application (September 2023), particularly by failing to investigate or disclose completion events and information about Defendant 10's whereabouts. The court rejected the Appellants' submission that subsequent procedural positions adopted by defendants excused those failures. The court held that the appellate judge had grappled with the fair presentation issues and that any error alleged was not of the exceptional type required by CPR 52.30 and would not probably have changed the outcome.

The court also rejected the submission that the appellate judge failed to address whether there was "another compelling reason" to grant permission to appeal, accepting that an experienced appellate judge would have had that limb in mind and that the submissions were principally challenges to evaluative conclusions rather than identification of unsettled legal points.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED. The CPR 52.30 application to reopen the PTA Decision is refused.

Implications: The PTA Decision refusing permission to appeal stands and the Appellants' application to reopen that refusal is unsuccessful. The court declined to reopen the appellate decision because no exceptional defect undermining the integrity of the PTA Decision was shown and there was no powerful probability of a different outcome. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of established authorities to the facts; the decision effects the parties by leaving the earlier refusal in place.