Khatib v Ramco International & Ors

Khatib v Ramco International & Ors

The judge at first instance was aware of the relevant legal principles and factors under CPR rule 3.9, considered the material facts and submissions, and exercised his discretion appropriately in refusing relief from sanction. The claimant's evidence was inadequate to explain the delay and non-compliance, and there was no error in the judge's approach or reasoning that would justify appellate intervention.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Walid Khatib; Defendant/respondent: Ramco International; Defendant/respondent: Perhome Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Trans-Atlantic International Trading (TIT) Inc; Defendant/respondent: Technical Management & Services Co; Defendant/respondent: Hydraulic Power Technology Texas Inc; Defendant/respondent: Louisiana Inc; Defendant/respondent: Ramadan Ben Ismail
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision Refusing Relief From Sanction (striking Out of Claim)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Striking Out of Claim, Application of CPR Rule 3.9, Costs Orders, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Striking Out of Claim Application of CPR Rule 3.9 Costs Orders Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walid Khatib

Claimant/appellant

Ramco International

Defendant/respondent

Perhome Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Trans-Atlantic International Trading (TIT) Inc

Defendant/respondent

Technical Management & Services Co

Defendant/respondent

Hydraulic Power Technology Texas Inc

Defendant/respondent

Louisiana Inc

Defendant/respondent

Ramadan Ben Ismail

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) Decision Refusing Relief From Sanction (striking Out of Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to grant relief from sanction under CPR rule 3.9
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider all relevant factors under CPR rule 3.9
  3. 3 Whether the judge's reasoning was flawed for not expressly addressing each factor

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance was aware of the relevant legal principles and factors under CPR rule 3.9, considered the material facts and submissions, and exercised his discretion appropriately in refusing relief from sanction. The claimant's evidence was inadequate to explain the delay and non-compliance, and there was no error in the judge's approach or reasoning that would justify appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of relief from sanction (striking out of claim stands)
  • Claimant permitted to defend the Part 20 claim (counterclaim)