Mohammad v Bin Tarraf & Ors [2025] EWHC 776 (KB) (02 April 2025)

Mohammad v Bin Tarraf & Ors [2025] EWHC 776 (KB) (02 April 2025)

The registration of the Ontario default judgment must be set aside as against the First Defendant because the Ontario Court did not have jurisdiction under the 1933 Act, the First Defendant did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to defend and did not appear, and there was a substantial breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure in the ex parte registration application. These are mandatory grounds for setting aside under the 1933 Act and are compatible with Article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 776 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Siddik Mohammad; First Defendant: Mohammad Hilal Salim bin Tarraf; Second Defendant: Bani Yas General Trade International; Third Defendant: Al Jazira Poultry Farm LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Registration of Foreign Judgment / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Registration Order
Outcome
Application granted; registration order set aside as against the First Defendant.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Full and Frank Disclosure, Article 6 ECHR, Forum of Necessity
Private International Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Service of Process Full and Frank Disclosure Article 6 ECHR +1 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siddik Mohammad

Claimant

Mohammad Hilal Salim bin Tarraf

First Defendant

Bani Yas General Trade International

Second Defendant

Al Jazira Poultry Farm LLC

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Registration of Foreign Judgment / Judgment on Application to Set Aside Registration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ontario Court had jurisdiction under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 for registration in England and Wales
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant received notice of the Ontario proceedings in sufficient time to defend and appeared
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure in the ex parte registration application

Ratio Decidendi

The registration of the Ontario default judgment must be set aside as against the First Defendant because the Ontario Court did not have jurisdiction under the 1933 Act, the First Defendant did not receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to defend and did not appear, and there was a substantial breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure in the ex parte registration application. These are mandatory grounds for setting aside under the 1933 Act and are compatible with Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application granted; registration order set aside as against the First Defendant.

Orders

  • Order of Master Eastman registering the Ontario Default Judgment is set aside as against the First Defendant.
  • No order made in respect of the Second and Third Defendants.