Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima

The High Court retains jurisdiction to permit an additional counterclaim to set aside a judgment for fraud, even after a limited remittal from the Court of Appeal, where significant new evidence of pervasive dishonesty emerges. The proposed counterclaim is not an abuse of process or impermissible re-litigation because the new evidence was not before the appellate courts and could not have been considered. Mr Azima has a real prospect of establishing both the fraud and materiality conditions, as the alleged coordinated perjury and concealment by RAKIA's key witnesses would have been an operative cause of the original judgment.

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
Civil (commercial Fraud) / Application for Permission to Bring Additional Counterclaim to Set Aside Judgment for Fraud
Outcome
Permission granted to bring additional counterclaim to set aside judgment for fraud.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction, Materiality of New Evidence, Finality of Litigation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Abuse of Process Jurisdiction Materiality of New Evidence Finality of Litigation

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 24 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

Civil (commercial Fraud) / Application for Permission to Bring Additional Counterclaim to Set Aside Judgment for Fraud

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to permit an additional counterclaim to set aside a judgment for fraud after remittal from the Court of Appeal
  2. 2 Whether bringing the additional counterclaim constitutes an abuse of process or impermissible re-litigation/collateral attack
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence satisfies the fraud and materiality conditions for setting aside a judgment for fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court retains jurisdiction to permit an additional counterclaim to set aside a judgment for fraud, even after a limited remittal from the Court of Appeal, where significant new evidence of pervasive dishonesty emerges. The proposed counterclaim is not an abuse of process or impermissible re-litigation because the new evidence was not before the appellate courts and could not have been considered. Mr Azima has a real prospect of establishing both the fraud and materiality conditions, as the alleged coordinated perjury and concealment by RAKIA's key witnesses would have been an operative cause of the original judgment.

Court Disposition

Permission granted to bring additional counterclaim to set aside judgment for fraud.

Orders

  • Permission granted to Mr Azima under CPR 20.4(2)(b) to bring the additional counterclaim against RAKIA.
  • Consequential matters (amendments to pleadings, directions, costs) to be addressed at a further hearing if not agreed.