[2025] EWHC 2480 (Ch)

It is also unnecessary for me to consider the defence of circuity of action which the Defendants advanced and I make no decision on this issue for the following reasons. This defence gave rise to a very complex issue of law, namely, whether the breaches of fiduciary duty committed by the MTIC Directors should be attributed to the MTIC Companies for the purpose of deciding whether TWPS had an equal and opposite claim against each of them. This issue turns on the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bilta No 2. Given that I have dismissed the claims on the merits, upheld the Defendants’ limitation defence (for the most part) and held that the Claimants have forfeited their rights as a matter of Curaçao law, it is better for a decision on this issue to await a case in which it has direct application.