Akbar v Ghaffar & Anor [2023] EWHC 1275 (Ch) (30 May 2023)

Akbar v Ghaffar & Anor [2023] EWHC 1275 (Ch) (30 May 2023)

The court found that while the claimant's solicitors' conduct in representing to RPC that they acted for both claimant and first defendant was questionable and not disclosed to the court, the omission was not deliberate or material to the grant of the freezing order. The court held that the duty of full and frank disclosure was not breached in a manner justifying discharge of the order. Even if there was non-disclosure, it was at most innocent and immaterial, and the order would have been granted in any event. The application to discharge the freezing order and proprietary injunction was therefore refused.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1275 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Saeed Akbar; First Defendant: Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar; Second Defendant: Sairah Kanwal Shah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial (freezing Order/proprietary Injunction) / Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order and Proprietary Injunction
Outcome
Application to discharge freezing order and proprietary injunction refused.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Proprietary Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Solicitor Conflicts of Interest, Material Non Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Proprietary Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Solicitor Conflicts of Interest Material Non Disclosure

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saeed Akbar

Claimant

Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar

First Defendant

Sairah Kanwal Shah

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial (freezing Order/proprietary Injunction) / Application to Discharge Worldwide Freezing Order and Proprietary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant and/or his solicitors failed to provide full and frank disclosure when obtaining a freezing order and proprietary injunction on a without notice basis
  2. 2 Whether any such failure was deliberate or innocent
  3. 3 Whether the freezing order and proprietary injunction should be discharged as a result of any non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the claimant's solicitors' conduct in representing to RPC that they acted for both claimant and first defendant was questionable and not disclosed to the court, the omission was not deliberate or material to the grant of the freezing order. The court held that the duty of full and frank disclosure was not breached in a manner justifying discharge of the order. Even if there was non-disclosure, it was at most innocent and immaterial, and the order would have been granted in any event. The application to discharge the freezing order and proprietary injunction was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge freezing order and proprietary injunction refused.

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing order and proprietary injunction remain in force.
  • Costs of the discharge application to be determined.