FOCUS: Guralp v SFO- A Narrow Squeak

Our latest FOCUS is out — written by Jonathan Fisher KC — examining the High Court’s decision in Guralp v SFO and what it means for the future of deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs).

The judgment in Guralp v SFO [2026] EWHC 37 (Admin) delivers an important boost to the Serious Fraud Office after a period of difficulty, confirming that the SFO can take enforcement action where a company fails to comply with the terms of a DPA. The Court rejected Guralp Systems Ltd’s argument that the agreement had expired before the SFO initiated breach proceedings, emphasising instead the public‑interest purpose of DPAs and the clear expectation that repayment obligations remain enforceable beyond the nominal expiry date if unmet. The key points in Jonathan Fisher KC‘s article include:

-The High Court held that Guralp’s DPA was still “in force” despite the passing of the five‑year period, as the company had not paid any of the £2m disgorgement owed
-Edis LJ stressed that DPAs are public‑interest instruments, not commercial contracts and must be construed accordingly
-The ruling prevents what would have been a major blow to the SFO, preserving the enforceability of its DPA regime
-The judgment highlights the need for clear, simple drafting in DPAs — and better SFO internal systems for managing deadlines
-The case raises wider questions about whether DPAs should be offered to companies incapable of paying financial penalties or disgorgement

Read FOCUS here