Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima [2022] EWHC 2727 (Ch) (01 November 2022)
Permission to bring an additional counterclaim to set aside the First Judgment for fraud is refused. The application constitutes an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the final order of the Court of Appeal, which expressly provided that the First Judgment and its findings on RAKIA's claims must stand irrespective of the outcome of the remitted counterclaim. The applicant does not have a real prospect of establishing the materiality condition required to set aside the judgment, and the proper route for challenging the Court of Appeal's order is via CPR 52.30, not by amendment within the remitted proceedings.
- Citation
- [2022] EWHC 2727 (Ch)
- Parties
- Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA); Defendant and 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
- 01 November 2022
- Procedural Posture
- High Court Chancery Division (business List) Civil Claim With Counterclaim and Additional Counterclaim Application / Application for Permission to Bring Additional Counterclaim and Amend Statement of Case
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Abuse of Process, Remittal From Court of Appeal, Materiality in Fraud Claims, Burden of Proof in Fraud Applications, Collateral Attack on Judgments
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA)
Claimant/defendant to Counterclaim
Farhad Azima
Defendant and 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
High Court Chancery Division (business List) Civil Claim With Counterclaim and Additional Counterclaim Application / Application for Permission to Bring Additional Counterclaim and Amend Statement of Case
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Mr Azima should be granted permission to bring an additional counterclaim to set aside the First Judgment on grounds of fraud
- 2 Whether the application is an abuse of process or a collateral attack on the Court of Appeal's judgment
- 3 Whether Mr Azima has a real prospect of establishing the Fraud and Materiality Conditions for setting aside a judgment for fraud
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to bring an additional counterclaim to set aside the First Judgment for fraud is refused. The application constitutes an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the final order of the Court of Appeal, which expressly provided that the First Judgment and its findings on RAKIA's claims must stand irrespective of the outcome of the remitted counterclaim. The applicant does not have a real prospect of establishing the materiality condition required to set aside the judgment, and the proper route for challenging the Court of Appeal's order is via CPR 52.30, not by amendment within the remitted proceedings.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- Permission to bring an additional counterclaim to set aside the First Judgment for fraud is refused.
- Permission to amend the hacking counterclaim to reflect new evidence is deferred to a further case management conference.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment