Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd and others (Appellants) v Pliego and another (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0122

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Astor Asset Management 3 Ltd (2) Vladimir Sklarov (3) Cornelius Vanderbilt Capital Management Ltd (4) Astor Capital Fund Ltd

Respondent(s)

(1) Ricardo Benjamin Salinas Pliego (2) Corporacion RBS SA de CV

Issue

What should the appropriate sanction be where the Claimant(s) has committed a serious abuse of process in an attempt to advantage the claim? In particular: How should the ‘forfeiture principle’ apply to abuse of process cases? Is the nature or strength of the claim legally relevant to the decision of whether to strike out a claim as an abuse?

Facts

Astor Asset Management and three others (“the appellants”) are defendants in underlying proceedings brought by the respondents that concern a dispute arising from a stock loan agreement. In 2021, Astor, the first defendant, provided a loan of c. $115m to the claimants/respondents, and was provided by the respondents with shares in a listed Mexican company, Grupo Elektra SAB de CV (“Elektra”), as collateral. Elektra’s share price subsequently collapsed between 2021 and 2024 and, partly as a result, Astor served a notice of default on the respondents. The respondents subsequently brought proceedings on 2 August 2024 alleging the appellants were part of a fraudulent scheme to misappropriate Elektra shares, which the appellants deny but which was described by the High Court (at [1]) as “an apparently strong and substantial, perhaps unanswerable, claim in fraud”. Shortly after bringing proceedings, on 27 August 2024, the respondents engaged a firm known as Black Cube, a UK-based company comprised largely of veterans from the Israeli intelligence community who specialise in “litigation support” and whose activities are said to have involved hacking against Romanian government officials and conducting a “sting” operation against a Canadian judge. On 3 October 2024, a Black Cube operative made contact with “X”, one of the partners at DWF Law who was representing the appellants in the proceedings with the respondents. This led to a Zoom meeting on 10 October 2024 and an in-person meeting on 4 November 2024 during which a Black Cube operative was able to obtain, fraudulently extensive information about the appellants’ case. This information was presented to the respondents and when their solicitors, Enyo Law, refused to look at the material, the respondents sacked them and replaced them with new solicitors, LK Law. As a consequence of the information obtained, the respondents sought summary judgment. In response, the appellants applied on 18 June 2025 to strike out the claim on the grounds of (i) abuse of process and (ii) risk of unfairness at trial. On 13 November 2025, in the High Court Deputy High Court Judge Mr Houseman KC handed down judgment concluding that (i) the Black Cube operation amounted to an abuse of process, (ii) striking out the summary judgment application, (iii) refusing to strike out the respondents’ claim, and (iv) adjourning determination to a further hearing. On 23 January 2026 permission was granted to appeal and cross-appeal to the Court of Appeal who, in a judgment dated 21 July 2026: (i) dismissed the respondents’ appeal against the finding of abuse/ strike out of summary judgment; (ii) discharged the freezing orders as a further response to the respondents’ abuse; (iii) declined to strike out the claim in full. The appellants sought permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to refuse to strike out the claim, but permission was refused by an Order dated 24 July 2026. The appellants now apply to the Supreme Court.