THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE REPUBLIC OF MOZAMBIQUE (acting through its Attorney General) |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL and Others |
Defendants |
____________________
Duncan Matthews KC and Frederick Wilmot-Smith (instructed by Signature Litigation LLP) for the Privinvest Companies (the Sixth to Tenth Defendants in CL-2019-000127)
Hearing dates: 18 September 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Robin Knowles J, CBE:
Introduction
Abuse of process: Mozambique's disclosure (Proposed Ground of Appeal 1)
Mozambican Law (Proposed Grounds of Appeal 2 and 3)
Causation (Proposed Ground of Appeal 4)
Limitation (Proposed Ground of Appeal 5)
23. Article 498(3) of the Mozambican Civil Code would provide a limitation period of five years (from "awareness of rights") rather than the three years (from "awareness of rights") under Article 498(1). The Privinvest Companies propose to argue that there was "an error of principle … to allow the Republic to rely upon Article 498(3)" because the Republic did not plead reliance on it. This has no merit where the parties agreed, as they did, that Article 498(3) was in issue in the List of Common Ground and Issues. But in any event, as the Court held, "even on arguments by Mr Safa and the Privinvest Companies that Mozambique cannot contend for [a] limitation period greater than three years after it became "aware of its rights" it is within the limitation period" (Judgment [529]).
Quantum (Proposed Ground of Appeal 6)
(1) The EMATUM Exchange
27. The proposed Ground of Appeal would challenge the Court's conclusion that "the EMATUM Exchange, and its subsequent restructuring and refinancing to Eurobonds is to be treated as … a reasonable step mitigating Mozambique's loss" (Judgment [563]). But the conclusion was an evaluation for the Court to make. The Court explained that Mozambique's alternative was "default at that point on that Guarantee" and "to risk the success of an allegation that [it] would not honour its sovereign, international, obligations" (Judgment [562]-[563]).
(2) The Settlement Sums
32. The settlement with banks other than Credit Suisse was after trial but before judgment. The Privinvest Companies propose to argue that because these settlement sums "were not pleaded … the Corporate Defendants were therefore never afforded any opportunity to address arguments on the topic". But again the Court took account of them to reduce not increase the amount for which the Privinvest Companies were liable. And the Court also said that it would "hear any argument that, for any reason, [the Court] should hear more about [the settlement] and its effect" (Judgment [568]-[569]). There was no request from the Privinvest Companies that the Court should hear more.
(3) and (4) "Compensating benefits"
Application for a stay