Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima [2022] EWHC 1295 (Ch) (27 May 2022)

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima [2022] EWHC 1295 (Ch) (27 May 2022)

Security for costs is ordered against Mr Azima for all Defendants at 60% of their current costs schedules due to real risk of substantial obstacles to enforcement, lack of asset disclosure, findings of dishonesty, and absence of evidence that assets are available for enforcement. Disclosure issues are to be resolved in accordance with the Disclosure Pilot Scheme, with consideration of exceptional circumstances for Model E disclosure.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1295 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority; Defendant/counter Claimant: Farhad Azima; Additional Defendant to Counterclaim: Stuart Robert Page; Additional Defendant to Counterclaim: David Neil Gerrard; Additional Defendant to Counterclaim: Dechert LLP; Additional Defendant to Counterclaim: James Edward Denniston Buchanan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Retrial of Counterclaim, Case Management Conference
Outcome
Applications for security for costs granted; disclosure issues to be resolved per judgment.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Disclosure Pilot Scheme, Fraud, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Costs Disclosure Security for Costs Disclosure Pilot Scheme Fraud Enforcement of Judgments

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

Parties

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority

Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim

Farhad Azima

Defendant/counter Claimant

Stuart Robert Page

Additional Defendant to Counterclaim

David Neil Gerrard

Additional Defendant to Counterclaim

Dechert LLP

Additional Defendant to Counterclaim

James Edward Denniston Buchanan

Additional Defendant to Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division) / Retrial of Counterclaim, Case Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against Mr Azima for the Defendants' costs of defending the counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether the amount of security should be for all costs or only additional enforcement costs
  3. 3 Appropriate disclosure model for disputed issues in the List of Issues for Disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered against Mr Azima for all Defendants at 60% of their current costs schedules due to real risk of substantial obstacles to enforcement, lack of asset disclosure, findings of dishonesty, and absence of evidence that assets are available for enforcement. Disclosure issues are to be resolved in accordance with the Disclosure Pilot Scheme, with consideration of exceptional circumstances for Model E disclosure.

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs granted; disclosure issues to be resolved per judgment.

Orders

  • Mr Azima to provide security for costs to Defendants at 60% of their current costs schedules, payable into joint solicitors' accounts.
  • Parties to agree form of order reflecting judgment.