The £320 Million Big Technologies Claim: What the Court Undertaking Actually Means
Big Technologies disclosed that Sara Murray provided an undertaking to the High Court not to dissipate assets up to £320 million. Here is what an undertaking is, what it is not, and why the distinction matters.
- 1.Big Technologies' audited 2024 results disclosed a non-dissipation undertaking up to £320 million.
- 2.The company described £320 million as the value of its claim.
- 3.An undertaking is not a finding of liability, nor a finding that £320m was 'stolen'.
- 4.It followed the company seeking a freezing order; the undertaking was given instead.
- 5.The underlying claim remains subject to ongoing litigation.
Big Technologies' audited 2024 results, published on 22 May 2025, disclosed that after the company sought a freezing order, Sara Murray provided an undertaking to the High Court agreeing not to dissipate assets up to £320 million. The company described £320 million as the value of its claim.
What an undertaking is — and is not
A non-dissipation undertaking is a promise given to the court, typically in the context of litigation, that a party will not dissipate assets up to a stated value. It is a procedural safeguard intended to preserve the position pending the determination of a claim. It is not a judicial finding that the assets are the proceeds of wrongdoing, and it is not a determination of liability.
The £320 million figure corresponds to the value Big Technologies placed on its claim. The undertaking helps preserve assets against the risk that, if a claim ultimately succeeds, there may be nothing left to enforce against. It does not establish that the claim will succeed, or that any particular sum was misappropriated.
- Claim value — the amount the company says it is owed or has lost. Not a finding.
- Undertaking — a promise not to dissipate assets up to that value. Not a finding of wrongdoing.
- Freezing order application — the company sought a freezing order; an undertaking was given instead. Not itself a judgment.
- Liability — determined only by a final judgment or settlement. Not established by an undertaking.
- Final judgment — the proceedings remain ongoing.
"£320m of stolen assets" or "a judicial finding of £320m fraud." The undertaking preserves the position; it does not establish the truth of the allegations, which are denied and remain subject to ongoing proceedings.
How this fits the wider dispute
The undertaking arose from the High Court proceedings commenced on 31 March 2025 following Sara Murray's dismissal. The company's 12 September 2025 litigation update set out its substantive allegations in more detail. Mediated discussions later ended without settlement, and the company stated it would continue litigation.
Read the facts vs allegations page for a side-by-side view of what is established, what is alleged, and what remains unresolved.
Sources & documents used in this article
- [1] Big Technologies plc, 2024 Audited Results and Notice of AGM, 22 May 2025
- [2] Big Technologies plc, RNS 0042D, 31 March 2025
- [3] Big Technologies plc, RNS 5703U, 14 September 2026