Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 507 (15 May 2023)

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 507 (15 May 2023)

Permission to bring the set-aside counterclaim was not an abuse of process because substantial new evidence of coordinated fraud and perjury by RAKIA and its witnesses was not previously considered, and Mr Azima has a real prospect of satisfying both the Fraud and Materiality Conditions. The Court of Appeal's prior assumptions did not encompass the scale or implications of the new evidence, and no unequivocal election was made to forego a fresh action. The High Court retains jurisdiction to hear such a claim.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 507
Parties
Claimant: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority; Defendant and Counterclaimant Respondent: Farhad Azima; Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/appellant: Stuart Robert Page; Second Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/first Appellant: David Neil Gerrard; Third Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/second Appellant: Dechert LLP; Fourth Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/third Appellant: James Edward Denniston Buchanan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Bring Set Aside Counterclaim and Amend Statement of Case
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to bring set-aside counterclaim upheld
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud, Collateral Attack, Materiality Condition, Finality of Litigation
Civil Procedure Fraud Commercial Law Abuse of Process Setting Aside Judgments for Fraud Collateral Attack Materiality Condition Finality of Litigation

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority

Claimant

Farhad Azima

Defendant and Counterclaimant Respondent

Stuart Robert Page

Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/appellant

David Neil Gerrard

Second Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/first Appellant

Dechert LLP

Third Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/second Appellant

James Edward Denniston Buchanan

Fourth Additional Defendant to Counterclaim/third Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Bring Set Aside Counterclaim and Amend Statement of Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to bring a set-aside counterclaim alleging judgment procured by fraud
  2. 2 Whether the proposed counterclaim constitutes an abuse of process or collateral attack on prior judgments
  3. 3 Whether new evidence satisfies the Fraud and Materiality Conditions for setting aside judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to bring the set-aside counterclaim was not an abuse of process because substantial new evidence of coordinated fraud and perjury by RAKIA and its witnesses was not previously considered, and Mr Azima has a real prospect of satisfying both the Fraud and Materiality Conditions. The Court of Appeal's prior assumptions did not encompass the scale or implications of the new evidence, and no unequivocal election was made to forego a fresh action. The High Court retains jurisdiction to hear such a claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to bring set-aside counterclaim upheld

Orders

  • Mr Azima granted permission to pursue set-aside counterclaim
  • High Court retains jurisdiction to hear claim to set aside judgment for fraud