Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd v Symphony Gems NV & Ors [2014] EWHC 3777 (Comm) (19 November 2014)

Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd v Symphony Gems NV & Ors [2014] EWHC 3777 (Comm) (19 November 2014)

The court held that the orders made during the period of fraudulent representation by Mr Benson were not final orders and that the exceptional circumstances of fraud and misconduct justified setting aside the adverse orders against RM under CPR r3.1(7).

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3777 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Symphony Gems NV; Defendant/applicant: Rajesh Kishor Mehta; Defendant/applicant: Vijay Kumar Kirtilal Mehta
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Previous Court Orders Under CPR R3.1(7)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Court Orders, Fraud on the Court, Committal Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Setting Aside Court Orders Fraud on the Court Committal Proceedings Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Symphony Gems NV

Defendant/applicant

Rajesh Kishor Mehta

Defendant/applicant

Vijay Kumar Kirtilal Mehta

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application to Set Aside Previous Court Orders Under CPR R3.1(7)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court orders made during period of fraudulent representation should be set aside under CPR r3.1(7)
  2. 2 Whether the court's discretion under CPR r3.1(7) is engaged in light of the fraudulent conduct of a solicitor
  3. 3 Whether the orders in question are final or interlocutory for the purposes of CPR r3.1(7)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the orders made during the period of fraudulent representation by Mr Benson were not final orders and that the exceptional circumstances of fraud and misconduct justified setting aside the adverse orders against RM under CPR r3.1(7).

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • All adverse orders made against Rajesh Mehta during the period of fraudulent representation by Mr Benson, including the suspended committal order and activated committal order, are set aside.