Ashraf Mengrani v Ilyas Mohamed & Anor

Ashraf Mengrani v Ilyas Mohamed & Anor

The claimant had a good arguable case that 17 Haslemere Gardens was the defendants' usual or last known residence for service under CPR 6.9, and reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the address. Section 1140 Companies Act 2006 did not apply as the defendants were sued as trustees, not directors. The defendants did not waive their jurisdiction challenge by seeking a stay. The case is suitable for ADR, but a stay should be imposed after a directions hearing to clarify outstanding issues and evidence.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ashraf Mengrani; Defendant/applicant: Ilyas Mohamed; Defendant/applicant: Nasima Mohamed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (trusts/property) / Interlocutory Applications (jurisdiction Challenge and Stay)
Outcome
Jurisdiction application dismissed; stay application adjourned for directions hearing
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Trustee Duties, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Trusts Law Pensions Law Service of Process Jurisdiction Trustee Duties Alternative Dispute Resolution Stay of Proceedings

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

Parties

Ashraf Mengrani

Claimant/respondent

Ilyas Mohamed

Defendant/applicant

Nasima Mohamed

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (trusts/property) / Interlocutory Applications (jurisdiction Challenge and Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form on the defendants at 17 Haslemere Gardens was valid under CPR 6.9
  2. 2 Whether section 1140 of the Companies Act 2006 applies to service on the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the defendants waived their right to challenge jurisdiction by seeking a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant had a good arguable case that 17 Haslemere Gardens was the defendants' usual or last known residence for service under CPR 6.9, and reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the address. Section 1140 Companies Act 2006 did not apply as the defendants were sued as trustees, not directors. The defendants did not waive their jurisdiction challenge by seeking a stay. The case is suitable for ADR, but a stay should be imposed after a directions hearing to clarify outstanding issues and evidence.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction application dismissed; stay application adjourned for directions hearing

Orders

  • Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; service at 17 Haslemere Gardens was valid
  • Section 1140 Companies Act 2006 does not apply