Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima [2022] EWHC 2727 (Ch) (01 November 2022)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether Mr Azima should be granted permission to bring an additional counterclaim to set aside the First Judgment on grounds of fraud
  2. 2 Whether the application is an abuse of process or a collateral attack on the Court of Appeal's judgment
  3. 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.