Ahmed v Habib Bank Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 40 (15 January 2001)

Ahmed v Habib Bank Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 40 (15 January 2001)

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds that there is a realistic prospect of success regarding whether the registered order qualifies as a High Court judgment and whether the Pakistani judgment was obtained by fraud; the public policy ground is not arguable.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 40
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mian Aftab Ahmed; Defendant/appellant: Habib Bank Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted on two grounds; stay of execution granted on usual terms; no order for costs.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Reciprocal Enforcement, Fraud in Foreign Judgments, Public Policy Exception
Civil Procedure Private International Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Reciprocal Enforcement Fraud in Foreign Judgments Public Policy Exception

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mian Aftab Ahmed

Claimant/respondent

Habib Bank Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registered order qualifies as a judgment of a High Court under the Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 and the relevant Order for Pakistan
  2. 2 Whether the Pakistani judgment was obtained by fraud within the meaning of the 1933 Act
  3. 3 Whether enforcement would be contrary to public policy due to deprivation of appeal in Pakistan

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal is granted on the grounds that there is a realistic prospect of success regarding whether the registered order qualifies as a High Court judgment and whether the Pakistani judgment was obtained by fraud; the public policy ground is not arguable.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted on two grounds; stay of execution granted on usual terms; no order for costs.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the first and second grounds (qualification of judgment and fraud)
  • No permission to appeal on public policy ground