Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors v Mehta & Ors

Friday, 20 February 2026 MRS JUSTICE JOANNA SMITH:

1. On 30 January 2026, the Active Defendants in this matter, namely the first to fourth and sixth defendants (“ the ADs ”), served a Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim (“ the RADCC ”) pursuant to permission given in an order made by the court at the fourth CMC. At that CMC, which took place over 9 and 10 December 2025, the Claimants were permitted to make various amendments to, amongst other things, their existing Consolidated Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim (“ the CRRAPOC ”). Their Consolidated Re-Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim (“ the CRRRAPOC ”) was to be filed by 15 December 2025 with the ADs being granted permission to amend their Amended Defence and Counterclaim (“ the ADCC ”) to address (i) any amendments consequential on the amendments to the CRRAPOC; and (ii) any amendments arising out of the forensic accounting reports. The terms of this permission were agreed between the parties after the hearing and inserted into the Order on that basis.

2. The parties agreed various extensions of time to the timetable set by the fourth CMC order, including extending time for service of the Re-Amended Defence and Counterclaim (“ the RADCC ”) to 30 January 2026. This was less than three weeks before the fifth CMC, which had been listed to take place between 17 and 19 February with a two-day time estimate. On 11 February (the same day that the Claimants first raised concerns about the ADs’ proposed amendments) the parties notified the court that the time estimate for the fifth CMC had reduced to one day.

3. On 17 February 2026, the Claimants issued an application notice seeking to strike out various paragraphs in the RADCC, pursuant to CPR 3.4 and/or the court's inherent jurisdiction "for being irregular (i.e. made without permission)". The grounds for the application, as set out in a few paragraphs in the application notice, are that in the RADCC, the ADs seek to delete a long-standing admission as to a particular aspect of the fraud that is alleged in this case; specifically that Amicorp laundered the proceeds of sale which were the monies that Al Mufied received from Emirates Gold. The Claimants say that the ADs failed to seek permission under CPR 14.5 to withdraw this admission and that it is now too close to trial for permission to be granted.

4. This application was, as I've indicated, issued shortly before the fifth CMC on 19 February 2026. The Claimants did not seek to serve or rely upon any evidence in support of the application, but instead referred in the application notice to correspondence between the parties' respective solicitors in which the Claimants identified the paragraphs in the RADCC to which objection was made.

5. On 18 February 2026, i.e. the day before the hearing of the fifth CMC, the parties wrote to the court indicating that they had agreed that the Claimants' strike out application be heard at the CMC and inviting the court to direct that it be determined on the basis of submissions alone. The parties were agreed that the matter could properly be dealt with, notwithstanding the short notice, and we were content to take this course. Accordingly the matter was heard on the afternoon of 19 February 2026 with each side relying solely upon their oral submissions, together with references to the White Book. We were not specifically referred to any authorities.

6. The PTR in this matter is fixed for 19 March 2026 and the 11-week trial is due to commence almost immediately after Easter. In the circumstances, it was plainly important that this application be dealt with at the earliest opportunity so as to ensure that the parties know the case that the ADs are permitted to advance at trial, and so as to avoid further interference with the parties' trial preparation. I asked the parties at the outset of the application to confirm again that they did not seek to rely upon any evidence and they confirmed that they did not.

7. Given the circumstances, I have prepared a judgment overnight and I am not going to rehearse in the judgment any detail, including the complex and detailed facts, beyond that which is necessary to an understanding of our decision.

8. According to their solicitors' letter of 16 February 2026, annexed to the application notice, the amendments which are challenged by the Claimants as improperly withdrawing admissions (and are thus the subject matter of the application) are at paragraphs: 71.3, 71.5, 157A.7.2, 157C.1, 157C.5, 157C.5.3, 157C.5.4, 158.1.3, 159, 162.1, 164.1.1, 180.1A, 199, 202A.1, and 210A(i) of the RADCC.

9. We note that in another letter of 11 February 2026 attached to the application notice, the Claimants' solicitors identified additional paragraphs to which objection was taken, but we have restricted this judgment to only those paragraphs specifically identified as requiring permission in the letter of 16 February 2026. As far as we can see, we were not taken during the hearing to any of the other paragraphs referred to in the letter of 11 February 2026 and we had no submissions on them. Our attention was not drawn purely to paragraphs which were said not to be consequential on the CRRRAPOC, and indeed the application is concerned only with the alleged attempt to withdraw an admission. There is no strike out application in relation to anything other than paragraphs which are said to fall within this description.

10. As far as we can see, and we were not addressed in detail on this, the proposed amendments in the paragraphs on which the Claimants specifically rely for the purposes of their application fall broadly into three categories: (a) Amendments designed to plead and rely upon the evidence of the ADs' forensic accountancy expert Mr Thompson, served on 10 December 2025 (see paragraphs 157A.7.2 and 199). (b) Amendments designed to respond to a new case advanced by the Claimants in their CRRRAPOC about the evidence to be found in what are referred to as the Sharjah Court's Expert Reports (see paragraphs 157C.5 and 157C.5.3). (c) Amendments designed to alter the ADs' case as to the mechanics of the initial stages of the alleged fraud, whether gold drawn down by Winsome and Forever Precious under the Precious Metals Facilities (“ PMFs ”) was transferred to Emirates Gold, and whether payments from Emirates Gold to Al Mufied can be regarded as the traceable proceeds of that gold (see paragraphs 71.3, 71.5, 157C.1, 157C.5.4, 158.1.3, 159, 162.1, 164.1.1, 180.1A, 202A.1 and 210A(i)).

11. The main dispute between the parties relates to the third category of amendments identified above, however we should deal briefly first with the other two categories.

12. As to the amendments falling within category 1, we can see no objection to the ADs pleading in paragraph 157A.7.2 that the flow of funds beginning with those received by Al Mufied from Emirates Gold is as described in section 7 of Mr Thompson's report. This is the flow of funds that the experts have been asked to consider, arising out of the Order of 25 April 2025 and the Amended Voluntary Particulars ordered at that time, and there is no suggestion that Mr Thompson should be precluded from giving evidence on this issue at trial. I note that this challenged paragraph falls within a lengthy new section of the RADCC which sets out in detail Mr Thompson's conclusions on the tracing exercise undertaken by the Claimants. None of the other new paragraphs in this section appear to be challenged on this application.

13. This appears to us to be just the sort of plea that the parties envisaged when they agreed that the ADs should be permitted to plead matters arising out of their expert's report and it does not involve the withdrawal of any admission. The same point applies to paragraph 199 of the RADCC (in which the ADs plead reliance on the conclusions in the Thompson report as to the destination of the Emirates Gold funds). The only possible objection that could be made to this paragraph concerns the final few words, namely "... without prejudice to their denial ... that the Emirates Gold funds represent proceeds of the PMFs/Alleged Fraud". These words will fall to be considered in connection with the third category of amendments identified above, however there is no basis whatever for a strike-out of the remainder of these two paragraphs.

14. As to paragraphs falling within category 2, in paragraph 59.1 of the CRRRAPOC, the Claimants plead for the first time that: "In proceedings brought by Winsome and Forever Precious against the UAE Distributor Companies before the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance, expert reports show that Winsome and Forever Precious sold gold, jewellery and diamonds to the UAE Distributor Companies between 18 April 2012 and 21 March 2013 with a price of approximately USD 1.26 billion".

15. This plea was made against the background of an agreement between the parties, recorded in the recitals to the Order of 10 December 2025, to the effect that court-appointed expert reports filed at the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance are accurate as to the facts stated therein (save in respect of a point which does not arise in this context).

16. Paragraph 157C.5 of the RADCC does no more than rely on a different finding in these reports, namely that "... the exports to the Obidah Customers totalled US$1.278 million and included jewellery as well as US$111 million in loose diamonds." We can see no objection to this and it certainly does not involve the withdrawal of any admission. In so far as this averment leads to a new plea at paragraph 157C.5.1 to the effect that Emirates Gold does not deal in diamonds and that there is no basis to infer that the loose diamonds were themselves the proceeds of the PMFs, that plea does not appear to be objected to by the Claimants in the context of this application and in any event concerns the flow of monies from Emirates Gold to Al Mufied. We can see no objection to these paragraphs.

17. As to the plea at 157C.5.3 of the RADCC to the effect that: "Further, the timing of the sales to the Obidah Customers as found in the Sharjah Court's Experts' Reports is inconsistent with those sales having funded the alleged Flow 1 payments. For example, as at 25 June 2012, the amount allegedly paid by Emirates Gold to Al Mufied under Flow 1 was US$238 million more than the sales of gold jewellery to the Obidah Customers up to that date", this again appears to be a plea based on the content of the Sharjah Expert Reports and thus in our view unobjectionable. Again it does not appear to us to involve an attempt to withdraw an admission. In so far as it raises an issue of the type identified in respect of amendments falling under category 3, it will be covered by what we say in respect of those amendments.

18. The third category of amendments requires a rather more careful consideration, including an understanding of the way in which each side's case has evolved over the course of various amendments to the pleadings. For these purposes, I shall only focus on the relevant evolutions.

19. Put simply, the Alleged Fraud involves an allegation that the ADs brought about a default by Winsome and Forever Precious in respect of PMFs pursuant to which they had been provided with gold which they used to make jewellery. Consortium banks who had guaranteed the PMFs paid up on the guarantees. The Claimants say that the proceeds of the PMFs were dissipated and concealed through a web of corporate entities and were ultimately returned to the ADs. During this process, the Claimants alleged (in an Overview section at paragraph 23 of their Consolidated Particulars of Claim served in May 2023) that: "the laundering process was facilitated by the Amicorp Participants ..." (companies and individuals said to be operating on the instructions of the ADs) and that funds in excess of US$1 billion were laundered through the Claimant companies. The details of the laundering process or flow of funds were then set out in section C of that pleading at paragraphs 58 to 119.

20. At paragraph 59 of the Consolidated Particulars of Claim the Claimants said this: "The Claimants do not currently know precisely how or where the gold drawn down under the Precious Metals Facilities was used or sold. Pending disclosure, the Claimants infer and believe that such steps as were taken as regards the drawn down gold included and/or culminated in Al Mufied, one of the Layer 1 Companies, receiving a series of payments totalling some USD1.2 billion from a UAE based refinery called Emirates Gold DMCC".

21. In their Defence filed in December 2023, the ADs admitted paragraph 23 of the Consolidated Particulars of Claim, save that they denied their involvement in any laundering process as alleged or at all. In response to paragraph 59, the ADs pleaded that gold purchased and shipped under the PMFs was manufactured into jewellery in India before being exported and sold to the Obidah Customers but thereafter said they had no knowledge of what happened to the jewellery. They made no admission as to the second sentence of paragraph 59, albeit they asserted that the receipt of $1.2 billion by Al Mufied from Emirates Gold was "consistent with the Obidah Customers having sold jewellery to this value to their own customers".

22. In a Consolidated Re-Amended Particulars of Claim served by the Claimants in July 2025, paragraph 23 remained unchanged but section C, to which it referred, was amended with a new pleading now inserted at paragraph 58A setting out the Claimants' detailed case as to the flow of funds pursuant to the Alleged Fraud. New paragraphs 58B.1 and 58B.2 pleaded that gold drawn down under the PMFs worth circa USD 1.26 billion was delivered by Winsome and Forever Precious to Emirates Gold via an authorised agent, Transguard and that Al Mufied received circa USD 1.229 billion from Emirates Gold. At paragraph 59, the Claimants inserted a new case based on an inference as to how the gold drawn down under the PMFs was used or sold: "... the Claimants infer that what happened was as follows: (i) Winsome and Forever Precious provided the gold to 13 distributor companies (i.e. the Layer 1 Companies and the 10 other UAE distributor companies) at Jatin Mehta's direction; (ii) the distributor companies, directly or indirectly, then provided that gold to Al Mufied; (iii) Al Mufied then sold the gold to Emirates Gold, receiving a series of payments totalling approximately USD 1.229 billion in return."

23. Thus this pleading at paragraph 59 posited that the gold moved from Winsome and Forever Precious to the distributor companies to Al Mufied and then to Emirates Gold, notwithstanding that the pleading at 58B (i) appeared to suggest something different.

24. In their ADCC served in August 2025 in response to this pleading, the ADs crossed out their admission in relation to paragraph 23, now pleading a longer set of subparagraphs at 71.1 to 71.7 in response. Although the Claimants sought to suggest that this was also an attempt to withdraw an admission, that argument was subsequently rejected by Master Kaye at a hearing in October 2025, and the ADs were permitted to retain the amendments.

25. Paragraph 71.1 of the ADCC continued to deny that the ADs had any involvement in the laundering process. Paragraph 71.2 stated that they had "no personal knowledge of, and do not admit, the details of the laundering process". They expressly confirmed they would "...plead further to the Claimants' funds flow allegations following input from their forensic accounting experts". Paragraph 71.3 admitted (without prejudice to what had gone before) that documents disclosed by the Claimants appeared consistent with the Amicorp Participants and Mr Kothari "having devised and implemented a scheme to conceal the transfer of the proceeds of sale of the jewellery purchased by the Obidah Companies from Winsome and Forever Precious (being the 'Amicorp Scheme' ) to various third parties".

26. Paragraph 71.5 of the ADCC said this: "In the premises, while the Family/IIA Defendants do admit and aver that the Amicorp Participants and Mr Kothari knowingly facilitated, devised and implemented a complex scheme to conceal the ultimate destination of the proceeds of sale by the Obidah Companies of the jewellery supplied to them by Winsome and Forever Precious, (a) they have no knowledge of, and do not admit, the details of such scheme, and (b) they have had no involvement in, and indeed are the victims of, such scheme."

27. This paragraph is said by the Claimants to be entirely consistent with the position that Mr Mehta, the First Defendant, has adopted in proceedings he has brought in Ahmedabad.

28. At paragraph 157C of the ADCC, the ADs responded to new paragraph 58B.1 of the Consolidated Re-Amended Particulars of Claim. For present purposes I note that 157C.5 pleaded that: "it is denied (if alleged) that any sums paid by Emirates Gold to Al Mufied are traceable or wholly attributable to bullion drawn down under the Precious Metals Facilities."

29. At paragraph 158 of the ADCC, the ADs responded to new paragraph 59 of the Consolidated Re-Amended Particulars of Claim denying the inference; denying that Winsome and Forever Precious provided "the gold" to the Obidah Customers and that the Obidah Customers were "distributor companies"; and denying that sales were made by Obidah Customers at the First Defendant's direction. Subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 59 of the Claimants' pleading were not admitted.

30. Pausing there - in August 2025, therefore, as we understand their pleaded case, the ADs were saying that: (i) they had no knowledge of any laundering; (ii) the documents appeared consistent with a scheme having been devised by Amicorp; (iii) they admitted there had in fact been such a scheme; albeit that (iv) they had no knowledge of it and did not admit the details of it. They denied, or did not admit, the inferences pleaded by the Claimants at paragraph 59, and they denied that sums paid by Emirates Gold to Al Mufied were traceable to the gold drawn down under the PMFs.

31. Against that background the Claimants sought to amend again in the terms of the CRRRAPOC. In this amendment the terms of paragraphs 23 and 58B remained materially the same (although following debate at the CMC in December 2025 the reference to the "authorised agent" in 58B.1 was removed).

32. However, the Claimants again changed their case in section C relating to the flow of funds under paragraph 59, now inferring that Winsome and Forever Precious had sold the gold to the distributor companies, that they had in turn provided the gold to Emirates Gold (and not Al Mufied as previously pleaded) and that Al Mufied then received a series of payments from Emirates Gold totalling USD 1.229 billion in "respect of that gold".

33. This pleading therefore posited a new and different route for the gold from Winsome and Forever Precious to the distributor companies and then on to Emirates Gold and then Al Mufied. It was in relation to this case that the Claimants then sought to rely on the Sharjah Expert Reports, to which we referred earlier, to show that Winsome and Forever Precious had sold gold and jewellery to the distributor companies. However, as is clear from new paragraphs 59.2 and 59.3 of the CRRRAPOC, the Claimants were no longer suggesting any direct link between the gold received by Emirates Gold and the USD 1.229 billion received by Al Mufied from Emirates Gold between April 2012 and March 2013.

34. The ADs' RADCC, served at the end of January 2026, makes amendments to paragraphs 71.3 and 71.5, to which the Claimants now object. Paragraph 71.3 now admits that the documents "appear consistent" with the Amicorp Participants and Mr Kothari having devised a scheme to conceal the "onward transfer of some funds received by Al Mufied from Emirates Gold" therefore removing the reference to "the proceeds of sale of the jewellery purchased by the Obidah Companies from Winsome and Forever Precious". This is certainly a change, but in our judgment this paragraph was no more than an averment in any event. A pleading that the documents appear consistent with a state of affairs does not appear to us to be a clear admission of anything.

35. Paragraph 71.5 was also amended to say this: "In the premises, while the Family/IIA Defendants do admit and aver that the Amicorp Participants and Mr Kothari knowingly facilitated, devised and implemented a complex scheme to conceal the ultimate destination of some of the funds received by Al Mufied from Emirates Gold proceeds of sale by the Obidah Companies of the jewellery supplied to them by Winsome and Forever Precious , (a) they have no knowledge of, and do not admit, the details of such scheme, and (b) they have had no involvement in, and indeed are the victims of, such scheme".

36. At paragraph 157.5B of the RADCC the ADs inserted a new plea which referred to the defects in the tracing exercise but admitted that on a banking analysis the funds originally paid by Emirates Gold to Al Mufied were “recycled”, albeit that the reason for this was said to be outside the knowledge of the ADs. At paragraph 157A.3, which is not challenged by the Claimants on the application, the ADs pleaded, by reference to Mr Thompson's report, that the tracing exercise on which the Claimants' case is based as to the flow of funds is "fundamentally flawed". At paragraph 157A.7.1 (another paragraph which is not challenged on this application) they pleaded that the Claimants have not put forward any basis to identify the funds they claim to trace as the proceeds of the PMFs.

37. A new non-admission as to whether any gold delivered by Winsome and/or Forever Precious to Emirates Gold was inserted by the ADs at paragraph 157C.1. The existing denial at 157C.5 (now 157C.6) as to the traceability of the bullion drawn down under the PMFs remains, albeit it is now admitted that Al Mufied appears to have received USD 1.229 billion from Emirates Gold.

38. Paragraph 158 of the RADCC now adds an admission that Winsome and Forever Precious sold gold jewellery to Obidah Customers and repeats the admission that according to banking documents Al Mufied received USD 1.229 billion from Emirates Gold. It also adds a denial at 158.1.3, a paragraph which is challenged by the application, that (in light of a discrepancy in amounts and timings) such payments can be regarded as traceable proceeds of gold drawn down under the PMFs. I note, however, that this denial bears a strikingly close resemblance to the existing denial in the ADCC at paragraph 157C.5, referred to above. In other words, the question of traceability was in issue in the ADCC and it remains in issue on the ADs revised case in the RADCC.

39. We do not consider these proposed amendments to amount to the withdrawal of an admission requiring the permission of the Court. Our reasons are as follows.

40. When considering whether there has been the withdrawal of an admission, the Court must first consider whether what is sought to be withdrawn is actually an admission. (See White Book, Volume 1 at 14.5.1). On close analysis we do not consider the ADs to have made an admission which requires permission if it is to be withdrawn.

41. The Claimants' pleadings have changed over time with different mechanisms for the flow of the gold being advanced. Specifically their case that the gold originally went to Al Mufied from the distributor companies has changed, such that it is now said that the proper inference is that the gold went to Emirates Gold. From there payments are said to have been made to Al Mufied. It appears to us that one must take great care where a defendant is being required to deal with changing pleadings which, as in this case, appear to weaken or remove any direct link between the gold from the PMFs and the onward transmission of monies to Al Mufied. The laundering by the Amicorp Participants is alleged to have taken place after these events.

42. Although the Claimants contend that there has until now been a clear admission on the face of the ADs' pleadings that the Amicorp Participants laundered the proceeds of the fraud, on close analysis we reject that contention. Although looked at in isolation, as the Claimants point out, certain paragraphs of the ADs’ original pleadings appear to make such an admission, in particular paragraph 71.5, a reading of the whole pleading clearly puts that into doubt. Certainly a reading of paragraph 158 ADCC indicates, as I have said above, that, at best, the ADs make no admissions as to the mechanism of the fraud.

43. Even if the ADs have made an admission, it is certainly not clear for the same reasons. That the parties have not understood there to have been such an admission is apparent from the Agreed List of Issues provided to the Court at this CMC, which identifies the following live issues for trial, arising from, as is clear from the footnotes, amongst others, paragraphs 59 of the CRRRAPOC and 158 of the RADCC: "14. What happened to the gold drawn down by Winsome and Forever Precious under the Precious Metals Facilities, and what happened to any proceeds of sale of the gold?

15. To what extent, if any, are the sums allegedly received by Al Mufied from Emirates Gold in the period April 2012 to March 2013 traceable to the sales by Winsome and Forever Precious of gold, jewellery and diamonds to the Layer 1 Companies between April 2012 and March 2013? …

18. Were any proceeds of the gold so drawn down ultimately received by Al Mufied and, if so, in what amounts and on what basis?"

44. While the content of the Agreed List of Issues does not have the status of pleadings, we consider it to be extremely telling that the parties' legal teams have apparently agreed that these are live factual issues without it being suggested that the ADs have already admitted that the Amicorp Participants laundered the proceeds of the gold such that it is not necessary to consider these issues. We note that the composite List of Issues for the CMC is dated 9 February 2026, after the RADCC had been served. The fact that Mr Mehta may be pursuing an inconsistent case in the Ahmedabad proceedings seems to us to be a matter that may be relevant to his evidence at trial but does not affect the issues as they have been identified in this case.

45. We were not at all convinced by Mr Parker's attempts to explain these Issues away by reference to the difference between factual and legal issues relating to the tracing exercise. Indeed, at one point in his own submissions he acknowledged that “the first pure tracing exercise to the gold, that's never been admitted". In common with Mr Dawid, we fail to see how that acknowledgement is not an end to this application on the part of the Claimants. It certainly deals with the numerous other paragraphs to which the Claimants object on the grounds that they are part and parcel of the attempt to withdraw an admission. These paragraphs seek to put in issue that the Emirates Gold funds represent traceable proceeds of the PMFs (e.g. paragraphs 157C.1, 157C.5.4, 158.1.3, 159, 162.1, 164.1.1, 180.1A, 202A.1 and 210A(i)).

46. Even if we are wrong and various of the paragraphs to which the Claimants object do in fact amount to the withdrawal of an admission, we consider, having regard to the factors identified in CPR 14.5, that it would be consistent with the interests of justice and the overriding objective to permit that withdrawal. Taking those factors in turn: a. The ADs are seeking to withdraw the admission in circumstances where the Claimants' case has changed over time, and they now have the advantage of an expert report from Mr Thompson served on 10 December 2025 (CPR 14.5(a) and (b)). As Mr Dawid points out, the ADs reserved their position in their Defence pending receipt of that evidence. In that report, Mr Thompson addresses, amongst other things, whether the Emirates Gold funds can themselves be traced back to jewellery sold by Winsome and Forever Precious to the 13 UAE companies. The amendments which are now challenged reflect Mr Thompson's views as expressed in his report, including that there is no proper evidential support to link the Emirates Gold funds to sale of jewellery by Winsome and Forever Precious and that, in respect of at least a proportion of such funds, the evidence is that they cannot be so linked. b. Turning to conduct (CPR 14.5(c)), if the ADs are seeking to withdraw an admission, I do not accept, as the ADs suggest, that they do not need permission to do that simply because of the terms of the order of 10 December 2025 permitting them to rely upon their expert evidence. However, the fact of an order in those terms is relevant to conduct. We cannot see anything in the Experts' First Joint Statement of September 2025 to suggest that the ADs were aware of the new case they now wish to advance at that time, and there is nothing to suggest that they have delayed in drawing this new evidence to the attention of the Claimants and the Court. In a Draft RADCC served on 17 November 2025, paragraphs 71.3 and 71.5 remained in the same form as they had been in the ADCC. But at the CMC on 9 December 2025, Mr Dawid raised the fact that he was expecting Mr Thompson's report, due to be served on the following day, to say something along the lines that we now see in the version of the RADCC that has in fact been served. I did not understand the Claimants at that time to express surprise or consternation about that and instead it appeared to be the Claimants' case that this would be an issue for trial. Notwithstanding Mr Dawid's express warning as to what Mr Thompson's report might contain, the Claimants then agreed to the Order including permission for the ADs to amend to reflect their expert report. c. As to prejudice (CPR 14.5(d)), we need no evidence to see that there would be prejudice to the ADs if their amendments, which rely upon the content of their own expert report, were not to be permitted. It is also unclear how the Claimants anticipate the trial would proceed in circumstances where they expressly disavow any intention to seek to exclude any parts of Mr Thompson's evidence. Mr Parker suggested during his submissions that if the ADs had wanted to establish prejudice they should have served evidence. But given that the strike out application was made by the Claimants and brought on at short notice on the terms I have identified, I do not regard that as a sensible or realistic criticism. As for the potential for prejudice to the Claimants, Mr Parker did not initially seek to identify any prejudice that he thought the Claimants might suffer if the amendments were permitted. Upon being given a second chance, he then indicated that the Claimants would likely be faced with having to reassess the hearsay notices and that they may find themselves "scrabbling around" to see what they could find out from Emirates Gold. While there may well be some additional work for the Claimants if the amendments are permitted, it was not suggested that any such work could not be done in advance of the trial or that the trial itself would be jeopardised. It was also not suggested that the Claimants' approach to the tracing exercise to date has been influenced by, or was dependent upon, the asserted admission. Although it was the Claimants' application to strike out, they had not considered it necessary to serve any evidence to address the likelihood of prejudice or anything else in support of their application, notwithstanding that three weeks have now passed since the service of the RADCC. They had time to do so. Accordingly while we accept there will be some additional work for the Claimants in the run-up to trial and there may be some consequential prejudice, we do not consider it to weigh heavily in the balance in the face of the other relevant factors. d. As to the stage of the proceedings (CPR 14.5(e)), we are close to trial and it is most unfortunate that this issue has arisen at this late stage. However, as I have said, there is no suggestion from the Claimants that they will be unable to get ready for trial or indeed that their expert will not be able to respond to the evidence of Mr Thompson. e. As to the prospects of success of the part of the claim to which the admission relates (CPR 14.5(f)), Mr Parker did not seek to suggest that permitting the amendments (and, on this analysis, permitting the withdrawal of the admission) would have any real detrimental effect on the Claimants' prospects of success. His concession that the Claimants have always understood that there is no admission as to the tracing of the gold at the outset of the Alleged Fraud rather indicates that there could not possibly be any such effect. Furthermore, during the course of his submissions, Mr Parker submitted that the case that the ADs now wish to advance is "nonsensical" effectively because they now say that no part of the USD 1.2 billion involved in the fraud was laundered by Amicorp. If that is so - and there is of course no application to strike out on that basis - then, no doubt, the Claimants will be able to take advantage of that “nonsensical” case at trial. f. Finally in our judgment, having regard to all the factors identified above, it is in the interests of the administration of justice (CPR 14.5(g)) to permit the withdrawal of the admission, if it was an admission. Doing so will ensure that the ADs are able to advance the case that they wish to advance at trial in accordance with their expert evidence. Having regard to the overriding objective, we consider it would be unjust to preclude the ADs from advancing that case.

47. Accordingly we reject the application to strike out.

48. By way of postscript, we observe that it is our view that the RADCC should now stand in its existing terms. There is no further challenge to its content and it has not been suggested that the Claimants wish to make any other applications in relation to it. Accordingly, insofar as may be necessary, we grant permission for the RADCC in the form in which it was served. ______________