Rahman v Rahman & Ors [2020] EWHC 2392 (Ch) (15 September 2020)

Rahman v Rahman & Ors [2020] EWHC 2392 (Ch) (15 September 2020)

The appropriate valuation date for damages in lieu of specific performance is the date of judgment or refusal of specific performance (2017), not the breach date (November 2010). Evidence relating to breakdown of relationship, conduct, and alleged delay is irrelevant or inadmissible, as prior findings determined claimant's entitlement and quasi-partnership status. Collateral attacks on findings are impermissible. Minority discount does not apply. Claimant's entitlement to distributions continues up to the date of judgment.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2392 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Habibur Rahman; First Defendant: Azizur Rahman; Second Defendant: Icon College of Technology and Management Ltd; Third Defendant: Icon Technology (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2020
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Application to Strike Out Evidence and Passages in Counterschedule During Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Application granted in substantial part; disputed evidence and passages struck out as irrelevant, inadmissible, or collateral attack.
Legal Topics
Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance, Valuation Date for Damages, Minority Shareholding Discount, Collateral Attack on Findings, Admissibility of Evidence, Laches, Limitation, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Equity Company Law Civil Procedure Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance Valuation Date for Damages Minority Shareholding Discount Collateral Attack on Findings +4 more

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Habibur Rahman

Claimant

Azizur Rahman

First Defendant

Icon College of Technology and Management Ltd

Second Defendant

Icon Technology (UK) Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Application to Strike Out Evidence and Passages in Counterschedule During Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the valuation date for damages in lieu of specific performance should be November 2010 or the date of judgment
  2. 2 Whether evidence relating to breakdown of relationship and conduct is admissible/relevant to damages assessment
  3. 3 Whether disputed evidence constitutes a collateral attack on prior factual findings

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate valuation date for damages in lieu of specific performance is the date of judgment or refusal of specific performance (2017), not the breach date (November 2010). Evidence relating to breakdown of relationship, conduct, and alleged delay is irrelevant or inadmissible, as prior findings determined claimant's entitlement and quasi-partnership status. Collateral attacks on findings are impermissible. Minority discount does not apply. Claimant's entitlement to distributions continues up to the date of judgment.

Court Disposition

Application granted in substantial part; disputed evidence and passages struck out as irrelevant, inadmissible, or collateral attack.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 6(d) and 20(c) of Counterschedule struck out
  • Specified paragraphs of D1's 10th witness statement, and statements of Dr Nabi, Mr Dulloo, and Sue Hindley struck out