Royal Courts of Justice, London

Dechert could end up paying liabilities of up to £3 million if the SFO loses in its dispute against the ENRC – but nothing more, the firm has claimed.

In their London High Court defence to an additional claim brought by the defendant in the case, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), Dechert and its global co-head of white collar, partner Neil Gerrard, assert that the firm's maximum liability to both the ENRC and the SFO was by agreement capped at a total £3 million. The document states this is "to be applied to the aggregate of Dechert's liability for such damages".

The long-running dispute followed allegations of corruption at the mining giant in 2010. The company sought advice from Gerrard, at the time a partner at DLA Piper, who brought the client over to Dechert when he moved firms the following year.

After the firm found evidence of wrongdoing and corruption within the company during its mandate, it prompted the SFO to launch a criminal investigation.

However, in 2013, ENRC filed a claim against the SFO, accusing it of mishandling the investigation, concurrently accusing Gerrard of handing privileged documents to officials at the enforcement agency. Though deeply involved in the matter – and listed as 'third' and 'fourth' parties to the case – neither Dechert nor Gerrard are defendants in the matter.

A bitter dispute ensued, with the ENRC terminating Dechert's involvement in the investigation in March 2013, and later accusing the firm of leaking confidential information to the Sunday Times.

In this latest development, Dechert and Gerrard go on to argue that "ENRC agreed that it would not bring any claim personally against any individual employee, consultant, or partner" for any losses it suffered, while Gerrard's liability to personally make any contribution to the SFO "is nil".

Though they assert that any payout is capped at £3 million, the two parties reiterate that they "deny any liability to ENRC in respect of the claims made against them" and "deny that they were in any breach of duty to ENRC or that… this caused any loss or damage to ENRC".

In addition to the £3 million liability, Dechert and Gerrard concede that, were they found liable to pay any contribution to the SFO, "interest will be payable on the amount of such contribution".

A spokesperson for Dechert said: "There's nothing unusual here – this is a commonplace legal procedure in cases like these."

Meanwhile, a person at the SFO said the organisation "denies that it is in any way liable to ENRC in respect of any of the allegations ENRC has made against the SFO".

In a separate case, Gerrard was last month accused of conspiring to damage the reputation of a businessman in another fractious dispute abroad.

A spokesperson for ENRC said: "Whilst Dechert may seek to dismiss this as "commonplace", this is in fact an unprecedented scenario where a major international law firm is not just accused of deliberately harming its client's interests (in order to increase its own billings) but now also faces a contribution claim from the SFO itself.

"The liability cap is irrelevant as Dechert recognise that it does not apply where they acted fraudulently or in "reckless disregard" of their professional duties. The total quantum of ENRC's claim against the SFO is almost US$100 million, even without taking into account interest and significant consequential losses."

Amendment: This article has been amended to make clear that this case is just part of the legal battles involving ENRC, Dechert and the SFO.