Mousavi-Khalkali v Abrishamchi & Anor [2019] EWHC 2364 (Ch) (18 September 2019)

Mousavi-Khalkali v Abrishamchi & Anor [2019] EWHC 2364 (Ch) (18 September 2019)

The claimant failed to establish a real risk that substantial justice would not be obtainable in Iran. The evidence did not show that the Iranian legal system or the defendants' influence would prevent a fair trial. England was not the natural or proper forum for the dispute, and the claims did not justify service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant's failures of disclosure, while material, did not alone disentitle him to relief, but the overall circumstances warranted setting aside service out and discharging the freezing order.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2364 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Seyed Mohammed Zaki Mousavi-Khalkali; First Defendant: Mahmoudreza Abrishamchi; Second Defendant: PARS IRATEL JOINT STOCK COMPANY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (chancery Division) / Jurisdiction Challenge and Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction/freezing Order
Outcome
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; service out of jurisdiction set aside; freezing order discharged.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Freezing Orders, Forum Non Conveniens, Disclosure Obligations, Contractual Disputes
Private International Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Freezing Orders Forum Non Conveniens Disclosure Obligations +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seyed Mohammed Zaki Mousavi-Khalkali

Claimant

Mahmoudreza Abrishamchi

First Defendant

PARS IRATEL JOINT STOCK COMPANY

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (chancery Division) / Jurisdiction Challenge and Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction/freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should exercise jurisdiction over claims against foreign defendants
  2. 2 Whether service out of the jurisdiction should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk that substantial justice will not be obtainable in Iran

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish a real risk that substantial justice would not be obtainable in Iran. The evidence did not show that the Iranian legal system or the defendants' influence would prevent a fair trial. England was not the natural or proper forum for the dispute, and the claims did not justify service out of the jurisdiction. The claimant's failures of disclosure, while material, did not alone disentitle him to relief, but the overall circumstances warranted setting aside service out and discharging the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; service out of jurisdiction set aside; freezing order discharged.

Orders

  • Permission to serve out of jurisdiction set aside
  • Freezing order discharged