Sucden Financial v TMT Metals establishes key precedent on international fraud jurisdiction

The High Court's recent judgement in Sucden Financial Limited v TMT Metals AG & Ors [2025] EWHC (Comm) provides significant guidance on jurisdictional challenges in international commercial fraud cases. The Honourable Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE delivered the judgement on 30 July 2025, addressing complex questions of service out of jurisdiction in commodities trading disputes.

Case Background and Parties

Sucden Financial Limited, an English derivatives and commodities broker, brought claims against Swiss metal trading company TMT Metals AG and its sole director Prateek Gupta. The dispute originated from a February 2010 contractual agreement between Sucden and TMT for futures and options trading facilities, governed by English law with express English court jurisdiction clauses.

The commercial relationship deteriorated in March 2022 when TMT failed to meet margin calls exceeding $6.6 million. Sucden delayed enforcement action based on representations regarding a bill of lading that subsequently proved fraudulent. Inspection of containers allegedly containing valuable nickel bound for Shanghai revealed only low-value composite materials.

Claims and Allegations

Sucden advanced multiple causes of action. The contractual claim against TMT sought recovery of the unpaid margin debt exceeding $6.6 million. Tort claims for deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation were brought against both TMT and Gupta, claiming damages over $6.7 million. Additional conspiracy allegations centred on the defendants' alleged coordination to provide fraudulent security for outstanding debts.

The fraudulent scheme involved misrepresenting the contents of shipping containers, with defendants allegedly conspiring to deceive Sucden regarding the true value of commodities securing their trading positions.

Jurisdictional Analysis

The central legal issue concerned Gupta's challenge to the English court's jurisdiction. His application sought to set aside orders permitting service of proceedings outside the jurisdiction. Whilst TMT's submission to English jurisdiction was established through the original trading agreement, Gupta's position required separate analysis under Civil Procedure Rules governing service out of jurisdiction.

The court examined applicable gateways for establishing jurisdiction over foreign defendants, particularly focusing on tort claims where damage was sustained within the jurisdiction. Justice Knowles found that Sucden had successfully established grounds for service out of jurisdiction against Gupta, noting the sufficient connection between the alleged tortious conduct and the English jurisdiction.

The judgement demonstrates the court's willingness to assert jurisdiction where fraudulent conduct by foreign defendants causes loss within England and Wales, even absent direct contractual relationships with those defendants.

Legal Implications

This decision reinforces the English court's robust approach to international commercial fraud cases. The judgement clarifies that conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation claims can establish sufficient jurisdictional grounds for service out of jurisdiction, particularly where financial losses crystallise within England and Wales.

The case illustrates how English courts will pierce complex international corporate structures where fraud is alleged, ensuring that jurisdictional technicalities do not prevent legitimate claims from proceeding. The court's analysis of alternative service methods also demonstrates practical flexibility in ensuring proceedings reach defendants attempting to evade service.

Sucden Financial v TMT Metals establishes important precedent for commodities trading disputes and international fraud litigation, particularly regarding jurisdictional assertions over foreign defendants in conspiracy cases. The judgement provides valuable guidance on establishing sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction in complex international commercial disputes involving fraudulent conduct.