BL-2025-001269 and BL-2024-001337 - [2025] EWHC 2706 (Ch)

In their application De Beers seek the following:

“The Mann Order [ie my order of November 2024] be varied by the addition of the following paragraph:

“For the avoidance of any doubt, paragraphs 6 to 10 of the Mann Order do not preclude the Applicants from entering into a settlement of the Third-Party Complaint and any other claims as contemplated in the draft Confidential Settlement Agreement.”

The application is made under CPR 40.9 since De Beers claims to be a non-party affected by an order of the court and entitled to apply under it, and so far as necessary under CPR 3.7(1) (the power of the court to vary its orders). I deal with their locus below.

For their part, as mentioned above, CIHL claims an injunction restraining De Beers from entering into the settlement agreement.

It will be apparent that each application is the converse of the other and the arguments by each side propounding its case are also relevant to resisting the opposing application. The real question is whether the relief already granted by this court should stand in the way of De Beers settling its claim. If it should not then the injunction will be refused and De Beers’ application should succeed (insofar as it can be said the my injunctions would otherwise pose the risk that they will be in contempt by entering into the settlement). Conversely, if CIHL is entitled to its injunction the De Beers application should fail.