The collapse of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in June 2025 is still being fought over in the courts. On 21 September 2026, the High Court gave commodities trader Glencore permission to pursue a $236 million claim, against the background of separate allegations involving at least £334 million in fictitious invoices. The UK accounting watchdog has also opened investigations into an accountant’s conduct and the audits of Prax’s parent company, State Oil. None of these proceedings has established fraud or misconduct.
The Lincolnshire refinery ceased processing crude oil in 2025. Its assets have since been sold, but the dispute over who is entitled to the remaining money is far from resolved. The questions now stretch from company accounts and bank-backed finance to the eventual cost of the liquidation to the public.
How the Lindsey refinery collapsed
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Limited was wound up on 30 June 2025. The Official Receiver took charge of the refinery at North Killingholme, assisted by specialists from FTI Consulting. The site had been one of the UK’s six major refineries, accounting for about 10% of the country’s petrochemical supply according to the later High Court judgment.
Ministers authorised short-term support for the Official Receiver to keep the site safe and manage an orderly wind-down. Refining ended in the summer of 2025 after no viable buyer for continued standalone operation was secured.
The Insolvency Service confirmed that Phillips 66 completed the acquisition of the refinery and other Prax assets on 28 April 2026. The company, which owns the neighbouring Humber refinery, did not plan to restart Lindsey as a standalone refinery. Of the employees remaining at the sites at the time of the sale, 109 were retained and 55 were made redundant. These figures do not represent the total number of jobs affected since the original collapse.
The £334 million invoice allegations
The financial dispute centres partly on a £738 million receivables securitisation facility arranged by HSBC. In ordinary terms, Prax companies could obtain funding by selling rights to payments they expected to receive from customers. Those receivables were transferred to a separate Irish vehicle financed through notes issued to investors and financial institutions.
The problem alleged by the administrators is that some debts used to obtain financing did not represent genuine transactions. The High Court judgment records allegations that former group chief executive Winston Soosaipillai instructed employees to record fictitious invoices and ineligible intra-group receivables in the reporting ledger. The value of invoices alleged to have been fictitious was at least £334 million by 13 June 2025, including more than £277 million reported as outstanding.
These are allegations advanced in litigation, not judicial findings. Soosaipillai has denied directing or knowingly participating in the alleged scheme, said he acted in good faith and rejected the accusations of dishonesty. The figures should not be described as money proven to have been stolen, nor should the £738 million size of the facility be confused with a proven fraud loss.
Why Glencore is pursuing $236 million
Glencore was Prax Lindsey’s exclusive supplier of crude oil under arrangements involving deliveries to the refinery, storage in segregated tanks and later sales to Prax when the oil was withdrawn for processing. When the refinery entered liquidation, some oil remained in tanks while other supplies had already been consumed in production.
On 3 July 2025 the Official Receiver reached a deal allowing Prax to buy crude oil and other feedstock still at the site. The judgment says Glencore was paid $314 million for those stocks, with a separate one-off $40 million processing fee. That transaction did not settle the earlier oil supplies Glencore says remained unpaid.
Its outstanding claim concerns approximately $236.16 million under five sales confirmations dating from April and May 2025. Glencore alleges it was induced to enter those transactions by fraudulent misrepresentations about Prax Lindsey’s financial position and contractual compliance. It seeks to unwind those transactions and establish rights over identifiable oil or proceeds from products made with it.
Tracing those proceeds is difficult. Oil from different deliveries was mixed, refined and blended. The Official Receiver argues that it may be impossible to follow a particular shipment through the process to a final product or its sale proceeds.
What the High Court actually decided
On 21 September 2026, Mr Justice Trower granted Glencore permission to bring its case against the company in liquidation. The decision, Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery Ltd [2026] EWHC 2394 (Ch), addressed whether proceedings could go ahead and whether there was a serious issue to be tried.
The judge did not decide that fraudulent misrepresentations occurred, that Soosaipillai had acted dishonestly or that Glencore owned the proceeds it seeks. Questions about delay, the agreements reached after liquidation and whether oil could legally be traced into later products remain for further proceedings.
The difference matters. Permission to pursue a claim is not a judgment in favour of the claimant, still less a finding of criminal guilt.
Auditors and an accountant face separate regulatory scrutiny
On 11 September 2026, the Financial Reporting Council announced three investigations connected with State Oil Limited, the Prax Group’s ultimate parent. These concern an individual accountant’s conduct in relation to the company’s financing arrangements between February 2021 and June 2025, KPMG’s audits of the financial years ending in 2022 and 2023, and PKF Littlejohn’s audit for the year ending in February 2024.
The FRC announcement expressly warns that opening an investigation does not establish misconduct or a breach of requirements. The regulator has not said that the investigation is a finding against the former chief executive, the refinery company or everyone connected with Prax.
The regulatory inquiries and Glencore’s civil case may examine overlapping financial history, but they address different people, duties and legal questions. Their outcomes should not be conflated.
Why taxpayers and other creditors have a stake
The government funded the Official Receiver’s work to keep the refinery safe and manage the wind-down. The court judgment explains that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero considers its advances recoverable as post-appointment expenses, giving them priority over some other creditors.
The Official Receiver’s projections, as described by the judge, indicated that even without Glencore’s new claim there could be a shortfall in government recovery. If Glencore ultimately succeeds in asserting a proprietary right over proceeds, the shortfall to the department could become substantially larger and HM Revenue and Customs might receive nothing from the relevant estate.
This is a conditional assessment of creditor recoveries, not a confirmed loss of $236 million to taxpayers. The department’s 2025–26 annual accounts say the government continued to indemnify the Official Receiver while the remaining liquidation matters were finalised.
What remains unresolved
The court has not tried the underlying Glencore claim. The administrators’ allegations about the invoices remain disputed. The Financial Reporting Council investigations remain distinct from those court allegations, with no established finding of misconduct in its opening announcement.
Nor does the sale of the physical refinery resolve who should bear the losses arising from its previous operations. For former employees, the closure and redundancies were immediate. For lenders, suppliers and the public purse, the final financial consequences may take considerably longer to determine.
The story therefore is not that a court has proved a £334 million fraud. It is that the collapse of a strategically important British refinery has left serious, contested financial allegations and a fight over hundreds of millions of pounds that is still being worked through.
Sources and further reading
- High Court judgment, 21 September 2026, [2026] EWHC 2394 (Ch).
- Financial Reporting Council, 11 September 2026, notice of investigations.
- Insolvency Service, 28 April 2026, completion of sale to Phillips 66.
- Department for Energy Security and Net Zero annual accounts, 2025–26, continuing indemnity.
- Reuters, 21 September 2026, court ruling and response to allegations.
- Global Trade Review, 27 August 2025, background on receivables financing and administrators’ concerns.
- UK Parliament, written answer, 8 September 2025, government support for operations.
- Featured image: Fish 4 News editorial composite, an illustration of the dispute rather than a documentary photograph of the court proceedings.
Video explainer
The following video, published on 5 November 2026, revisits the earlier court decision and the disputed financial arrangements. Its publication date should not be mistaken for the date of the High Court ruling.
