Aabar Holdings SARL & Ors v Glencore PLC & Ors

In complex securities litigation, effective case management requires claimants to particularise standing, title to sue and quantum sufficiently to enable meaningful admissions, denials, disclosure and settlement discussions.

A split trial is ordinarily appropriate where liability issues are fact-heavy, while causation and quantum require extensive expert evidence and may become unnecessary after liability is decided. Parties should make proportionate progress on later-stage issues before the first trial. Early disclosure may be ordered where it is likely to save costs, avoid the limitations of search-term disclosure and identify readily usable documents. A preliminary issue concerning privilege should be defined and determined early where it may materially affect trial preparation.

This was the first case management conference in consolidated claims by institutional investors concerning alleged bribery, corruption and oil-price manipulation within the Glencore group. The claims included statutory claims under sections 90 and 90A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, contractual claims, and common-law claims in deceit and negligence.

The court was required to determine directions concerning standing information, the structure of the trial, quantum and reliance requests for further information, costs management, disclosure, privilege, listing and the preparation of a common-ground and issues document.

1. Standing. Claimants bear the burden of establishing standing and title to sue. They were ordered to provide substantive particulars in the IRS Table, including the periods said to constitute the aftermarket, and the chain of custody for indirectly held shares. Where a claimant genuinely cannot provide a particular, the response must explain that position properly and be verified by a statement of truth. Generic answers would not achieve the table’s purpose of narrowing the issues.
2. Trial structure. A split trial was ordered. The liability issues were unsuitable for determination together with causation and quantum, which involved complex alternative counterfactuals and likely expert evidence. The division was sufficiently clear, avoided substantial duplication, could narrow the issues for the second trial, and might make that trial unnecessary. The court relied on the pragmatic approach described in Electrical Waste Recycling Group v Philips Electronics UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 38 (Ch) and the approach adopted in securities cases including G4S, RSA, Serco, Barclays and Standard Chartered.
3. Further information. The claimants were ordered to answer the quantum requests substantively by 30 September 2024. A fully reasoned objection was permissible where information could not properly be supplied at that stage, but bare assertions such as not entitled or matter for expert evidence were insufficient. The QE Claimants were also ordered to answer specified reliance requests.
4. Costs and disclosure. Although costs management did not automatically apply, precedent H and R budgets were ordered before the second CMC so that formal costs management could then be decided. In relation to early disclosure, Glencore was required to review the relevant law-enforcement requests and identify productions apparently wholly relevant, while considering proportionality and privilege. The court declined to order immediate production of the material itself.
5. Privilege. A preliminary issue trial was ordered concerning the extent to which Glencore could assert privilege against shareholders, following the competing approaches discussed in Sharp v Blank and Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd v Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd. The issues were to be defined comprehensively and determined well before the substantive trial.
6. The parties were directed to agree an order reflecting the judgment and the remaining case-management directions.

First-instance case management decision. No appellate history was stated.