CL-2023-000054 - [2025] EWHC 1609 (Comm)

At the hearing the parties came to agree that the amendments at paragraphs 11, 11B, 20, 20A, 20B, 20C, 25.1, 25.2, 26, 26.1, 26.2, 26A, 26B, 27, 28, 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.3, 29A, 31A, 31A.1, 31A.2, 32A, 32.B, 32.C, 55.2 and 75A of the DAD should be permitted on terms that the PT Defendants would not seek to re-open the disclosure process in reliance on these amendments.

At the conclusion of the hearing there remained in dispute the draft amendments at paragraphs 3 (including all its sub-paragraphs), 11A and 29B of the DAD (“the Disputed Amendments”). The Disputed Amendments were a subset of the draft amendments identified loosely as “the Knowledge Amendments”. The Knowledge Amendments were given this short-hand description because the amendments set out what the PT Defendants allege was the extent of the knowledge (within Trafigura’s senior management and throughout various of Trafigura’s departments) of “the Arrangement” which was made between them and the Claimants and upon which the defence is based.

At the conclusion of the hearing I refused permission to make the Disputed Amendments, with reasons to follow. My reasons are set out, shortly, below.