Court blocks ENRC’s bid to recover $128m in damages tied to botched SFO probe and legal misconduct
A mining multinational has taken its high-stakes legal fight to the Court of Appeal after nearly half of its $290 million lawsuit against the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and law firm Dechert was gutted by a judge’s refusal to allow a key amendment.
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), a Kazakhstan-based mining conglomerate, alleges it suffered colossal financial harm due to the SFO’s now-defunct criminal investigation into its affairs—an inquiry the court previously found was triggered by wrongdoing from within the SFO itself.
The SFO investigation, abandoned in 2023, was deemed in an earlier ruling to be the “effective cause” of ENRC’s losses, which the company says include unnecessary legal work, excessive costs, and wasted management time. That judgment opened the door to a second trial—Phase 2—scheduled for April 2026, focusing solely on the financial damages.
But just before the first case management hearing for that upcoming trial, ENRC attempted to widen its claim. It sought to include additional losses tied to the value of its shareholdings in certain subsidiaries, amounting to around $128 million with interest. That request was denied by the court, a decision ENRC is now fervently challenging.
Representing the mining firm, Nathan Pillow KC argued the judge’s decision to block the amendment was legally flawed and placed an “impossible hurdle” for parties seeking to update claims based on existing evidence. He described the refusal as a denial of ENRC’s fundamental right to access justice.
Embed from Getty Images“The judge applied the wrong legal test,” Pillow said in written submissions. “If we are right, there’s no prejudice to the other side. If we are wrong, there’s still no prejudice.”
He emphasised the weight of the loss: ENRC had already proved the underlying wrongdoing by the SFO, and now risked being blocked from recovering the full extent of its financial damages.
The SFO, however, defended the original ruling. Jonathan Hough KC told the court that there was “no good reason” for the amendments to be introduced so late in the proceedings, especially considering the complexity and size of the claim.
“It would be unfair and unsatisfactory to let these amendments in now,” Hough said, warning it would compromise the defence’s ability to bring expert evidence and assess the full implications of losses tied to subsidiary valuations.
He added that the judge’s original decision fell “well within a reasonable range of judgments” and fairly balanced the burden on both parties.
Dechert, also a defendant in the case, supported the SFO’s stance.
The panel of judges—Lord Justice Phillips, Lord Justice Nugee and Lord Justice Jeremy Baker—did not immediately rule. Judgment has been reserved, leaving both sides awaiting a potentially pivotal decision that could reshape the final outcome of one of the most high-profile legal showdowns involving a UK regulator in recent memory.
The ruling, when handed down, may determine whether ENRC’s bid for justice over alleged investigative misconduct ends with a landmark payout—or a courtroom defeat stripping away nearly half its claim.
