Spencer West secures Court of Appeal victory overturning USD $2.5 million judgment in cross-border payments dispute
Spencer West has secured a unanimous Court of Appeal judgment setting aside summary judgment of almost USD $2.5 million against its client, FMC Trading, a Singaporean forex business.
The decision, handed down on 19 June 2026 by a panel including the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, represents a significant victory and a vindication of Spencer West’s client’s position.
Lord Justice Males, delivering the lead judgment, found that the High Court Judge was wrong to bifurcate a summary judgment hearing by entering a final judgment (Judgment 1) against a company and the client for breach of contract, with the client being liable on a joint and several basis (Issue 1) whilst adjourning the same hearing against the defendant director of the company, against whom inducing breach of contract (Issue 2) had been alleged.
The adjournment included permission for the claimant to re-amend its particulars and for the other defendant to file a defence in response and to adduce new evidence. That new evidence led the learned judge to reconsider his initial interpretation of the contract in Judgment 1 and raised further questions about how the contract operated in practice. An examination of document authenticity and witness credibility was required which meant that summary judgment was inappropriate, and justice required a full trial (Judgment 2).
Although Issues 1 and 2 are legally distinct in that a breach of contract can occur without the dishonest inducement of the director of a breaching company, the new evidence provided the director in this case with a defence on both issues. In any event, where no breach is found, no finding of inducing breach can be made.
In circumstances where it was difficult to envisage how the director could have had a mistaken but honest belief in inducing the alleged breach if the new evidence is found to be lacking authenticity, Males LJ stated that Issues 1 and 2 were “inextricably linked” in practice despite being theoretically distinct. Separating these issues created a risk of prejudice to the client, namely the risk of a contradictory finding in relation to Issue 1 at a trial which the client would not be a part of.
It was therefore held that the judge was wrong to split the hearing. Permission to appeal was granted despite the application being approximately nine months out of time. The potential injustice to our client was so significant that fairness required the judgment to be set aside notwithstanding any prejudice to the claimant.
Leading the matter, Spencer West Partner Ramie Farag spoke of the significance of the result for his client.
“I’m delighted to have secured a favourable outcome. FMC Trading was found jointly and severally liable for alleged breaches of contract outside of the knowledge or doing of its business’s principal, who the Court has considered to be an honest and good faith actor.
“In those circumstances, a USD $2.5 million judgment and having his assets in Singapore subject to a Mareva Injunction was incredibly harsh. Enforcing English Court judgments in Singapore is relatively easy. Despite being under significant pressure, and in rather dramatic circumstances, we were able to secure a stay of execution in England and Wales only two days before enforcement in Singapore was expected to take place.
“We were then, with support from foreign counsel, able to leverage the stay order to negotiate a grace period with Singaporean creditors in circumstances where both the judgment and the freezing order had triggered events of default under loan documentation.
“FMC Trading has been in the forex business for almost 35 years without incident until now; this successful appeal cures those breaches of contract vis-à-vis local creditors and enables the business to continue as usual.”
Note: Judgment 1: [2024] EWHC 2922 (Comm); Judgment 2: [2025] EWHC 1623 (Comm); the Appeal: [2026] EWCA Civ 763 (Comm).
