Farook Owadally & Anor v Planology Ltd & Ors.

Farook Owadally & Anor v Planology Ltd & Ors.

The County Court judge was not wrong to refuse to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim. The illegality defence and abuse of process arguments raised complex, fact-sensitive issues, particularly given the strict liability nature of the offences and the potential exception where claimants may not have been privy to the facts making their acts unlawful. The claim did not amount to a collateral attack on the convictions, and the claimants had a real (not fanciful) prospect of establishing at trial that the illegality defence did not fully bar their claim. The case was properly left for trial rather than being terminated at an interlocutory stage.

Parties
Claimant & Respondent: Mr Farook Owadally; Claimant & Respondent: Ms Seema Khan; First Defendant & Appellant: Planology Ltd; Second Defendant: Hawkins Ryan Solicitors (a firm); Third Defendant & Appellant: Bell Buttrum Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa), Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Strict Liability Offences, Collateral Attack on Conviction
Tort Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa) Abuse of Process Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Strict Liability Offences +1 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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Farook Owadally

Claimant & Respondent

Ms Seema Khan

Claimant & Respondent

Planology Ltd

First Defendant & Appellant

Hawkins Ryan Solicitors (a firm)

Second Defendant

Bell Buttrum Ltd

Third Defendant & Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Strike Out/summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed as an abuse of process or for illegality (ex turpi causa) due to the claimants' criminal convictions for strict liability offences
  2. 2 Whether the illegality defence bars recovery of losses flowing from criminal convictions, including fines and consequential losses, in a professional negligence claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim amounts to a collateral attack on criminal convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The County Court judge was not wrong to refuse to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim. The illegality defence and abuse of process arguments raised complex, fact-sensitive issues, particularly given the strict liability nature of the offences and the potential exception where claimants may not have been privy to the facts making their acts unlawful. The claim did not amount to a collateral attack on the convictions, and the claimants had a real (not fanciful) prospect of establishing at trial that the illegality defence did not fully bar their claim. The case was properly left for trial rather than being terminated at an interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals of Planology Ltd and Bell Buttrum Ltd are dismissed.
  • The claim proceeds to trial; no terminating ruling granted.