Ricardo Benjamin Salinas Pliego & Anor v Astor Asset Management 3 Limited & Ors

In responding to an abuse of process, the court must choose a response that is appropriate and proportionate. The response need not be limited to striking out the claim. Where the abuse occurs outside the court system, a targeted order may be appropriate even before its future impact on the litigation is fully assessed. The court may distinguish between the quality of the conduct and its potential consequences, and between actual and anticipatory abuse. A party who engages in serious abusive conduct may be ordered to pay indemnity costs attributable to an attempt to benefit from that conduct or deny its existence.

This was a consequential hearing following the court’s judgment on the claimants’ conduct in obtaining illicit information connected with the litigation: [2025] EWHC 2968 (Comm). The parties sought permission to appeal or cross-appeal on issues concerning the characterisation of the conduct as an abuse of process, the court’s procedural management, the choice of remedy, and the timing of assessment of the information’s evidential and forensic impact.

The court also considered the defendants’ application for indemnity costs and related consequential matters, including the claimants’ interim undertaking, payment on account and the proposed Information Review Hearing.

1. Permission to appeal. Permission was granted on the principal issues concerning the characterisation of the claimants’ conduct as an abuse of process, the relevance of the alleged conduct of another participant, the postponement of detailed assessment of the illicit information, and the court’s choice of response. Permission was refused in relation to challenges to the primary factual findings.
2. The court’s task after finding an abuse of process is to adopt a response that is appropriate and proportionate. The fact that there is no direct precedent or exact factual analogue does not prevent a finding of abuse. The court may distinguish abuse arising from the quality of conduct from abuse arising from its impact, and actual abuse from anticipatory abuse.
3. Where the misuse occurs outside the court system and constitutes an affront to justice or an attempt to subvert the procedural rules, a targeted order may have terminal effect without striking out the action as a whole. This differs from misuse manifested by a claim or allegation that should not remain on the court file, for which striking out is ordinarily appropriate.
4. A procedural agreement or an earlier time estimate does not bind the allocated judge in managing a first-instance hearing. Internal management of the hearing is not ordinarily susceptible to appellate intervention merely because the judge adopted a different assessment of what could be achieved in the available time.
5. Indemnity costs. A party engaging in serious abusive conduct can expect to pay indemnity costs attributable to an attempt to take advantage of that conduct or to deny its existence. The order did not depend on an independent finding that the summary judgment application or resistance to the cross-applications was itself abusive.
6. The claimants were ordered to pay the costs of the hearing on the indemnity basis, with 25% of the defendants’ costs ring-fenced as relating solely to the Information Review Hearing. A substantial payment on account was ordered, with its fate reserved. The interim undertaking was extended, the action was not stayed, and the parties were given liberty to apply at the case management conference.

• High Court (Commercial Court). The present judgment followed an earlier judgment in the same proceedings, [2025] EWHC 2968 (Comm), and determined permission to appeal, indemnity costs and consequential matters.