Ziyavudin Magomedov & Ors v TPG Group Holdings (SBS), LP & Ors

Reopening a refusal of permission to appeal is an exceptional jurisdiction. Under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 52.30, the applicant must show that the earlier proceedings’ integrity was critically undermined, that a different result was powerfully probable, and that significant injustice has occurred for which reopening is the only effective remedy.

The court should first ask whether the appellate judge grappled with the essential points. If so, reopening requires an exceptional mistake that corrupted the process. Concise reasons and grouped grounds may suffice where the issues are properly understood. A challenge that the earlier decision was simply wrong does not meet the test.

The claimants brought complex conspiracy and related claims concerning Russian port businesses. Bright J dismissed or otherwise disposed of the claims and applications in the Commercial Court in a judgment dated 17 January 2025, reported at [2025] EWHC 59 (Comm).

Males LJ refused permission to appeal on 3 June 2025, concluding that an appeal had no real prospect of success. The claimants applied under CPR 52.30 to reopen that refusal, alleging that the appellate judge had failed to grapple with grounds concerning the FESCO and NCSP conspiracies, jurisdictional gateways, fair presentation, and an alleged abuse of process. The central issue was whether the permission decision involved an exceptional failure of process making reopening necessary to avoid real injustice.

Application dismissed. The claimants did not establish that the refusal of permission to appeal involved a process failure of the kind required by CPR 52.30.

1. The court adopted the guidance in Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group Plc [2021] EWCA Civ 1156, [2022] 1 WLR 191. Reopening is truly exceptional. It requires critical undermining of the integrity of the earlier proceedings, a powerful probability that the result would have been different, and a powerful probability that significant injustice has occurred for which reconsideration is the only effective remedy.
2. For an application concerning refusal of permission to appeal, the court should first ask whether the appellate judge grappled with the issues. If the judge did so, the court should then ask whether an exceptional mistake, such as wholly failing to understand a clearly articulated point, corrupted the process and would probably have produced a different result. The requirement of a probable different result applies at each stage.
3. The PTA Decision showed that Males LJ had understood the structure of the case, considered the grounds and supporting skeleton argument, and addressed the essential complaints. He was entitled to group grounds 1 to 6 because they shared the common complaint that Bright J had wrongly assessed the merits. He was not required to address every ground separately or provide lengthy reasons. The underlying principles concerning unlawful means conspiracy had also been addressed through the authorities, including Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2021] EWHC 1907 (Comm) and The Racing Partnership Ltd v Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1300, [2021] FSR 2.
4. The duty of fair presentation on an ex parte application to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction is owed to the court and protects the integrity of its processes. It is assessed at the date of the application. A later forensic decision by an opposing party cannot excuse an earlier failure by the applicant to investigate and disclose material matters. Abuse of process and fair presentation are distinct issues.
5. Fair presentation decisions involve evaluative and discretionary judgments. An appellate court interferes only for immaterial considerations, failure to consider material matters, an error of principle, or a conclusion outside the reasonable range. The fact that a decision appears harsh is insufficient.
6. The failure expressly to mention the other compelling reason limb did not demonstrate a failure to grapple with the application. Since the appellate judge had concluded that the appeal had no real prospect of success and no realistically arguable unsettled point of law was shown, there was no powerful probability of a different result. It was unnecessary to decide whether an alternative effective remedy existed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the CPR 52.30 application to reopen Males LJ’s refusal of permission to appeal.
• High Court of Justice, Commercial Court: Bright J’s judgment dated 17 January 2025, [2025] EWHC 59 (Comm), dismissed or otherwise disposed of the claimants’ conspiracy and related claims and applications.