Sucden v TMT Metals: nickel fraud claims clear the tort gateways as the Court of Appeal refuses to wait

Sucden v TMT Metals has produced two Court of Appeal rulings in ten days, and both favour claimants pursuing foreign defendants in fraud. The court dismissed Prateek Gupta’s jurisdiction appeal on 31 July 2026, confirming that tort claims arising from a nickel fraud satisfy the jurisdictional gateways, then on 10 August ordered his defence served rather than suspend proceedings for a contemplated Supreme Court permission application.

How did Sucden v TMT Metals reach the Court of Appeal?

Sucden Financial, a derivatives and commodities broker incorporated in England and Wales, gave TMT Metals AG of Switzerland a futures and options trading facility in February 2010, governed by English law with an English jurisdiction clause. TMT left margin calls unpaid. Sucden alleges that Mr Gupta, TMT’s sole director and an indirect shareholder resident in Dubai, induced it to hold off enforcement by offering security in the form of a bill of lading over nine containers said to contain nickel full plate cathodes, under a memorandum of deposit signed in August 2022. The containers travelled from Rotterdam to Shanghai. When they were opened, the cargo was a low-value composite rather than nickel, and Sucden issued proceedings in August 2023 claiming over US$6.6m from TMT in debt and almost US$6.75m from TMT and Mr Gupta in deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation, with a conspiracy claim of the same amount adding shipper Mine Craft Limited. The dishonesty allegations remain allegations. Nothing has been tried, and every finding so far concerns jurisdiction alone.

Why did the tort gateway succeed?

Mr Gupta applied to set aside permission to serve him out of the jurisdiction, and lost before Robin Knowles J in the Commercial Court in July 2025. Sucden had relied on two limbs of CPR Practice Direction 6B: the tort gateway at paragraph 3.1(9), and necessary-or-proper party at 3.1(3). The judge found a good arguable case that damage was sustained within the jurisdiction, because a meeting in London in 2022 caused Sucden, itself in England, to keep waiting rather than enforce its debt, and held England the appropriate forum given the English-law contract and the existing proceedings against TMT here. In [2026] EWCA Civ 986 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against that decision and gave appellate guidance on determining where damage is sustained for tort claims served out. The practical lesson for claimants is one of pleading breadth. Plead every gateway the facts will bear, since a court that rejects one route may still find another open, and the tort gateway carried the day here.

Does a pending Supreme Court application buy a pause?

It does not, on these facts. Having lost twice, Mr Gupta indicated he wished to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on jurisdiction, and asked for time for his acknowledgement of service and defence to run only once that process concluded. In [2026] EWCA Civ 1080 Foxton LJ, with the Master of the Rolls and Elisabeth Laing LJ agreeing, refused to wait. The defence must be served within 28 days of the court’s order. That direction is conditional on Sucden undertaking not to treat compliance as submission to the jurisdiction, and to indemnify Mr Gupta for costs reasonably incurred should the Supreme Court ultimately uphold his challenge; if Sucden declines those undertakings, the deadline runs instead from 14 days after any further acknowledgement of service. The court balanced a defendant’s right to exhaust a jurisdictional challenge against efficient progression of litigation where the underlying events are more than four years old and dishonesty is alleged, and progression won. The appeal listing shows how long the procedural phase has already run. Defendants who fought jurisdiction to a standstill in cases like Drelle will recognise the pattern, and our guide to enforcing foreign judgments in England covers the enforcement side of the same cross-border toolkit.