Court documents
Dispute over the disclosure of documents from ENRC’s internal investigation:
- Director of the SFO v ENRC Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB) (High Court judgment)
- Director of the SFO v ENRC Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 (Court of Appeal judgment)
ENRC’s claims for damages from Dechert, Neil Gerrard and the SFO:
- ENRC Ltd v Dechert LLP & Gerrard; ENRC Ltd v Director of the SFO [2022] EWHC 1138 (Comm) (High Court judgment)
- Executive summary
- Chronology
- Dramatis personae
- Skeleton arguments
- Witness statements
ENRC’s claim for damages from the SFO in respect of alleged leaks to journalists:
- Skeletons from pre-trial review in November 2022
ENRC’s libel claim related to Kleptopia:
- ENRC Ltd v Tom Burgis & HarperCollins Publishers Ltd [2022] EWHC 487 (QB)
The SFO’s prosecution of Anna Machkevitch for failing to comply with request for documents:
- R v Anna Machkevitch
ENRC’s claim for damages against Mark Hollingsworth (settled)
- ENRC Ltd v Mark Hollingsworth
Ever since its listing on the London Stock Exchange in 2007, ENRC has been dogged by controversy with boardroom rifts, troubled investment deals, and mounting corruption allegations. In 2011, ENRC hired Dechert LLP to conduct an internal fact-finding investigation into whistleblower allegations of bribery and financial wrongdoing at its Kazakh subsidiary. Kept on retainer with an expanding scope of work, Dechert made several presentations to the SFO on its findings until ENRC fired the US law firm in March 2013.
The communications between Dechert, acting primarily through its then partner Neil Gerrard, and the SFO have been the subject of long-running litigation that appeared to stall the criminal investigation into the Kazakh mining company. ENRC has not only denied all allegations of corruption, but gone on the offensive – including by suing its former lawyers for breach of contract and the SFO for misfeasance in public office.
In May 2022, the High Court delivered its damning verdict on the conduct of Dechert, and Gerrard in particular. The judge found that Gerrard recklessly breached his professional duties by making unauthorised disclosures to the SFO, leaking confidential information to the press, and acting plainly against the interests of ENRC. While Gerrard played the “leading role” as “instigator” of the misconduct, the judge found the SFO showed “bad faith opportunism” in accepting these unauthorised disclosures. A further trial in March 2023 was held to determine what losses, if any, were caused by the SFO’s conduct, and judgment is expected in late 2023. Most significantly, the court cleared the SFO of misfeasance in public office and declined to grant key demands sought by ENRC relating to the agency’s handling of its investigation.
In August 2023, the SFO announced that following the latest review of its investigation, the agency concluded that it had “insufficient admissible evidence to prosecute” and closed the case. Yet a decade since the SFO launched its investigation into ENRC, the civil litigation which has long diverted scarce public resources from the fight against economic crime remains ongoing.
