Dr Zeyn Bharucha v Dr Riyaz Patel & Anor

Dr Zeyn Bharucha v Dr Riyaz Patel & Anor

The proceedings against both defendants are stayed: against the First Defendant under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 due to a valid arbitration clause and no loss of the right to a stay, and against the Second Defendant on case management grounds. Serious and culpable (but not deliberate) non-disclosure at the without notice hearing—especially failure to disclose the arbitration clause and relevant partnership law authorities—requires discharge and refusal to regrant freezing and proprietary injunctions against both defendants. The arbitration clause excludes the court's jurisdiction under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996, so no prohibitory injunction can be granted under s.44. Even absent...

Parties
Claimant: Dr Zeyn Bharucha; First Defendant: Dr Riyaz Patel; Second Defendant: R P Dental Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/partnership Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications: Stay of Proceedings, Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions, S.44 Arbitration Act Application
Outcome
Proceedings stayed against both defendants; all freezing and proprietary injunctions discharged and not regranted; prohibitory injunction discharged and not regranted due to lack of jurisdiction; all other consequential matters adjourned.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Preservation, Arbitration Stay, Material Non Disclosure, Partnership Disputes, Jurisdiction Under Arbitration Act S.44, Proprietary Injunctions
Commercial Law Partnership Law Arbitration Civil Procedure Freezing Injunctions Asset Preservation Arbitration Stay Material Non Disclosure +3 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Zeyn Bharucha

Claimant

Dr Riyaz Patel

First Defendant

R P Dental Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/partnership Dispute) / Interlocutory Applications: Stay of Proceedings, Freezing and Proprietary Injunctions, S.44 Arbitration Act Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be stayed in favour of arbitration under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether freezing and proprietary injunctions should be continued or regranted
  3. 3 Whether material non-disclosure at the without notice hearing requires discharge of injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings against both defendants are stayed: against the First Defendant under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 due to a valid arbitration clause and no loss of the right to a stay, and against the Second Defendant on case management grounds. Serious and culpable (but not deliberate) non-disclosure at the without notice hearing—especially failure to disclose the arbitration clause and relevant partnership law authorities—requires discharge and refusal to regrant freezing and proprietary injunctions against both defendants. The arbitration clause excludes the court's jurisdiction under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996, so no prohibitory injunction can be granted under s.44. Even absent...

Court Disposition

Proceedings stayed against both defendants; all freezing and proprietary injunctions discharged and not regranted; prohibitory injunction discharged and not regranted due to lack of jurisdiction; all other consequential matters adjourned.

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings against First Defendant under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996
  • Stay of proceedings against Second Defendant on case management grounds