One Unique LLC v Babaee & Ors [2026] EWHC 717 (Comm) (01 April 2026)

One Unique LLC v Babaee & Ors [2026] EWHC 717 (Comm) (01 April 2026)

The referenced communications were not protected by without prejudice privilege as they were not genuine settlement negotiations but demands for full repayment; there was no real risk of injustice or prejudice justifying a stay of civil proceedings pending criminal proceedings; and the bankruptcy did not justify a stay as the claim was for fraud and the Trustee in Bankruptcy had no objection.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 717 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: ONE UNIQUE LLC; First Defendant: Kambiz Babaee; Second Defendant: K10 Developments Limited; Third Defendant: K10 Management Account Limited; Fourth Defendant: K10 Group Limited; Fifth Defendant: Bhupen Varsani; Sixth Defendant: Ali Kian Shokrollah Babaee; Seventh Defendant: Ana Totoc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (fraud, Misappropriation) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Stay)
Outcome
All applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Without Prejudice Privilege, Stay of Proceedings, Bankruptcy, Strike Out Applications
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Law Fraud Without Prejudice Privilege Stay of Proceedings Bankruptcy Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ONE UNIQUE LLC

Claimant

Kambiz Babaee

First Defendant

K10 Developments Limited

Second Defendant

K10 Management Account Limited

Third Defendant

K10 Group Limited

Fourth Defendant

Bhupen Varsani

Fifth Defendant

Ali Kian Shokrollah Babaee

Sixth Defendant

Ana Totoc

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (fraud, Misappropriation) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out, Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether references to certain communications in the pleadings are protected by without prejudice privilege and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether civil proceedings should be stayed pending parallel criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether civil proceedings should be stayed due to the bankruptcy of the first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The referenced communications were not protected by without prejudice privilege as they were not genuine settlement negotiations but demands for full repayment; there was no real risk of injustice or prejudice justifying a stay of civil proceedings pending criminal proceedings; and the bankruptcy did not justify a stay as the claim was for fraud and the Trustee in Bankruptcy had no objection.

Court Disposition

All applications dismissed

Orders

  • Strike out application refused
  • Application for stay pending criminal proceedings refused