Mousavi-Khalkali v Abrishamchi & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1493 (12 November 2020)

Mousavi-Khalkali v Abrishamchi & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1493 (12 November 2020)

The appellant failed to demonstrate by cogent evidence that there was a real risk he would not obtain substantial justice in Iran, given his extensive connections and continued travel there despite FCO advice. The judge's approach to both jurisdiction and costs was within the proper ambit of discretion and supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 1493
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Seyed Mohamad Zaki Mousavi-Khalkali; First Defendant/respondent: Mahmoudreza Abrishamchi; Second Defendant/respondent: Pars Iratel Joint Stock Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Freezing Injunction, Costs on Account
Private International Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Service Out of Jurisdiction Freezing Injunction Costs on Account

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seyed Mohamad Zaki Mousavi-Khalkali

Claimant/appellant

Mahmoudreza Abrishamchi

First Defendant/respondent

Pars Iratel Joint Stock Company

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in finding Iran was the appropriate forum for the dispute
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk that the appellant would not obtain substantial justice in Iran due to his dual nationality and FCO travel advice
  3. 3 Whether the order for payment on account of costs was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate by cogent evidence that there was a real risk he would not obtain substantial justice in Iran, given his extensive connections and continued travel there despite FCO advice. The judge's approach to both jurisdiction and costs was within the proper ambit of discretion and supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against jurisdiction dismissed
  • Appeal against costs order dismissed