RAS AL KHAIMAH INVESTMENT AUTHORITY v FARHAD AZIMA & ORS.

RAS AL KHAIMAH INVESTMENT AUTHORITY v FARHAD AZIMA & ORS.

Security for costs is ordered against Mr Azima because he is resident outside the jurisdiction, has failed to provide evidence of his assets, and there is a real risk of substantial obstacles to enforcement of any costs order. The amount of security is set at 60% of the Defendants' estimated costs to date. On disclosure, the court ruled on the disputed issues in the LOID, granting Model E disclosure only on the central hacking issue (Issue 3(a)), and Model D or C on others, balancing proportionality and the need for fair trial.

Parties
Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority; Defendant/counterclaimant: 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 (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs and Disclosure) on Remitted Counterclaim After Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Security for costs ordered against Mr Azima; directions given on disputed disclosure issues.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Disclosure, Abuse of Process, Fraud, Jurisdiction, Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Security for Costs Disclosure Abuse of Process Fraud Jurisdiction Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority

Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim

Farhad Azima

Defendant/counterclaimant

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 (commercial/chancery) / Interlocutory Applications (security for Costs and Disclosure) on Remitted Counterclaim After Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against Mr Azima and in what amount
  2. 2 Whether the List of Issues for Disclosure (LOID) should include certain disputed issues and the appropriate disclosure model for each

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs is ordered against Mr Azima because he is resident outside the jurisdiction, has failed to provide evidence of his assets, and there is a real risk of substantial obstacles to enforcement of any costs order. The amount of security is set at 60% of the Defendants' estimated costs to date. On disclosure, the court ruled on the disputed issues in the LOID, granting Model E disclosure only on the central hacking issue (Issue 3(a)), and Model D or C on others, balancing proportionality and the need for fair trial.

Court Disposition

Security for costs ordered against Mr Azima; directions given on disputed disclosure issues.

Orders

  • Mr Azima to provide security for costs to the Defendants in the sum of 60% of their current costs schedules, to be paid into joint solicitors' accounts.
  • List of Issues for Disclosure (LOID) to be amended as directed, with specific disclosure models (Model E for Issue 3(a), Model D or C for others) as set out in the judgment.