Zahoor & Ors v Masood & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 650 (03 July 2009)

Zahoor & Ors v Masood & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 650 (03 July 2009)

The judge was wrong to uphold the claimant's shares claim on an unpleaded basis (contribution theory); the claimant's claim to shares failed as neither the pleaded agreement nor the alternative basis was established. The claimant was not entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal as summary dismissal was justified by his misconduct. The judge was correct not to strike out the entire claim solely due to misconduct, as a fair trial had occurred. No third party costs order was made against the claimant as responsibility for the relevant conduct was not sufficiently established.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 650
Parties
Appellants/defendants: Mohammad Zahoor & Ors; Respondent/claimants: Sohail Masood & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; shares claim dismissed; damages for wrongful dismissal set aside; no order for third party costs against claimant.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Forgery and Perjury in Litigation, Beneficial Ownership of Shares, Wrongful Dismissal, Third Party Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Employment Law Abuse of Process Forgery and Perjury in Litigation Beneficial Ownership of Shares Wrongful Dismissal Third Party Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Zahoor & Ors

Appellants/defendants

Sohail Masood & Ors

Respondent/claimants

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should strike out a claim where both parties have committed serious misconduct including forgery and perjury
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to beneficial ownership of shares based on contribution to purchase price or alleged agreements
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was wrongfully dismissed and entitled to damages for unpaid salary

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was wrong to uphold the claimant's shares claim on an unpleaded basis (contribution theory); the claimant's claim to shares failed as neither the pleaded agreement nor the alternative basis was established. The claimant was not entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal as summary dismissal was justified by his misconduct. The judge was correct not to strike out the entire claim solely due to misconduct, as a fair trial had occurred. No third party costs order was made against the claimant as responsibility for the relevant conduct was not sufficiently established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; shares claim dismissed; damages for wrongful dismissal set aside; no order for third party costs against claimant.

Orders

  • Shares claim in favour of claimant set aside
  • Order for payment of US$342,000 plus interest for wrongful dismissal set aside