Saddiq Omar Abu Seedo v Fahmy El Gamal

Saddiq Omar Abu Seedo v Fahmy El Gamal

Where a defendant induces a transaction by a package of related lies as part of a single fraudulent scheme, discovery of the core deceit starts time running for limitation purposes under s.32(1)(a) Limitation Act 1980, even if all details are not known. In this case, Mr El Gamal discovered the essential fraud in 2009, so his deceit claim was time-barred. However, his claim for indemnity based on Mr Salfiti's failure to disclose his personal interest as solicitor (a breach of fiduciary duty) was not statute-barred, as this was not discoverable from the 2009 correspondence.

Parties
Claimant: Saddiq Omar Abu Seedo; Defendant/respondent: Fahmy El Gamal; Defendant/respondent: El Gamal and Co Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Amjad Salfiti
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Period in Fraud/deceit, Discovery of Fraud for Limitation Purposes, Solicitor's Fiduciary Duties, Indemnity and Contribution Between Defendants
Limitation of Actions Fraud Trusts Professional Negligence Limitation Period in Fraud/deceit Discovery of Fraud for Limitation Purposes Solicitor's Fiduciary Duties Indemnity and Contribution Between Defendants

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saddiq Omar Abu Seedo

Claimant

Fahmy El Gamal

Defendant/respondent

El Gamal and Co Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Amjad Salfiti

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims of the 1st and 2nd Defendants against the 3rd Defendant are barred by limitation under s.32(1)(a) Limitation Act 1980 in a deceit claim.
  2. 2 Whether time runs from discovery of the fraud as pleaded or as found by the court after trial.
  3. 3 Whether multiple lies in a single fraudulent transaction give rise to separate causes of action for limitation purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a defendant induces a transaction by a package of related lies as part of a single fraudulent scheme, discovery of the core deceit starts time running for limitation purposes under s.32(1)(a) Limitation Act 1980, even if all details are not known. In this case, Mr El Gamal discovered the essential fraud in 2009, so his deceit claim was time-barred. However, his claim for indemnity based on Mr Salfiti's failure to disclose his personal interest as solicitor (a breach of fiduciary duty) was not statute-barred, as this was not discoverable from the 2009 correspondence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court and County Court upheld.
  • Indemnity against Mr Salfiti to Mr El Gamal and EGC sustained on the basis of breach of fiduciary duty not time-barred.