Taylor v Khodabakhsh & Ors [2021] EWHC 655 (Ch) (23 March 2021)

Taylor v Khodabakhsh & Ors [2021] EWHC 655 (Ch) (23 March 2021)

There is no sound basis to grant a proprietary injunction as payment of money pursuant to a valid court order vests both legal and beneficial title in the payee unless and until the order is set aside. The claim in conspiracy and deceit is confined to obtaining the judgment by fraud and/or dishonesty, and cannot succeed independently of a successful attack on the original decision. The threshold for serious issue to be tried or good arguable case is not met for the proprietary claim. Injunctive relief is refused.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 655 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Kevin Taylor; Defendant/respondent: Mohammed Khodabakhsh; Defendant/respondent: New Beginnings Technologies LLC; Defendant/respondent: Rhino Overseas Inc (aka Rhino Overseas Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2021
Procedural Posture
On Notice Application for Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions / Interim Application Pending Defence; Proceedings Stayed Pending Outcome of Application
Outcome
Application for proprietary and freezing injunctions refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Proprietary Injunction, Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Constructive Trust, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Deceit
Civil Procedure Fraud Equity Commercial Law Freezing Injunction Proprietary Injunction Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Constructive Trust +2 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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Taylor

Claimant/applicant

Mohammed Khodabakhsh

Defendant/respondent

New Beginnings Technologies LLC

Defendant/respondent

Rhino Overseas Inc (aka Rhino Overseas Limited)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

On Notice Application for Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions / Interim Application Pending Defence; Proceedings Stayed Pending Outcome of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a good arguable case to set aside a judgment for fraud
  2. 2 Whether proprietary and freezing injunctions should be granted
  3. 3 Whether Defendants obtained judgment by fraud or dishonesty

Ratio Decidendi

There is no sound basis to grant a proprietary injunction as payment of money pursuant to a valid court order vests both legal and beneficial title in the payee unless and until the order is set aside. The claim in conspiracy and deceit is confined to obtaining the judgment by fraud and/or dishonesty, and cannot succeed independently of a successful attack on the original decision. The threshold for serious issue to be tried or good arguable case is not met for the proprietary claim. Injunctive relief is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for proprietary and freezing injunctions refused

Orders

  • No proprietary injunction granted
  • No freezing injunction granted