Mengrani v Mohamed & Anor [2025] EWHC 1131 (Ch) (09 May 2025)

Mengrani v Mohamed & Anor [2025] EWHC 1131 (Ch) (09 May 2025)

Service at 17 Haslemere Gardens was valid as claimant had the better argument it was defendants' usual or last known residence; reasonable steps were taken to ascertain address; defendants' application for stay did not waive jurisdiction challenge; stay suitable for ADR but only after directions hearing to clarify outstanding issues.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1131 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ashraf Mengrani; Defendant/applicant: Ilyas Mohamed; Defendant/applicant: Nasima Mohamed
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Trusts/property / Interlocutory Applications (jurisdiction and Stay)
Outcome
Jurisdiction application dismissed; stay application deferred pending directions hearing.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Stay of Proceedings, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Trustee Duties, Pension Scheme Administration
Trusts Property Civil Procedure Pensions Service of Process Jurisdiction Stay of Proceedings Alternative Dispute Resolution +2 more

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 10 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 and Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the claim form on the defendants was valid under CPR 6.9
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' application for a stay constitutes waiver of jurisdiction challenge
  3. 3 Whether a stay should be granted to facilitate ADR

Ratio Decidendi

Service at 17 Haslemere Gardens was valid as claimant had the better argument it was defendants' usual or last known residence; reasonable steps were taken to ascertain address; defendants' application for stay did not waive jurisdiction challenge; stay suitable for ADR but only after directions hearing to clarify outstanding issues.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction application dismissed; stay application deferred pending directions hearing.

Orders

  • Claimant's service of claim form deemed valid.
  • Directions hearing to be listed to clarify outstanding issues and evidence.