Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care & Desai (A Firm) & Ors [2006] EWHC 1179 (Ch) (22 May 2006)

Zambia, Attorney General v Meer Care & Desai (A Firm) & Ors [2006] EWHC 1179 (Ch) (22 May 2006)

The court held that the objections raised by the 2nd and 8th Defendants were not sustainable, except for the issue of knowing receipt, which could be revisited after pleadings closed. The complexity and detail of the pleadings were justified by the nature of the case. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment were rejected, and the parties were directed to proceed to the next stage of pleadings.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1179 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia; 1st Defendant: Meer Care & Desai (A firm); 2nd Defendant: Cave Malik; 8th Defendant: Bimal Thaker; 3rd Defendant: Dr Chiluba; 9th Defendant: Kabwe; Other Defendants: Access Financial Services Ltd directors (D7, D10, D11)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—strike Out and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; permission to amend pleadings granted.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Fraudulent Misappropriation, Conspiracy, Knowing Receipt, Knowing Assistance
Civil Procedure Fraud Trusts Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Fraudulent Misappropriation Conspiracy Knowing Receipt +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General of Zambia for and on behalf of the Republic of Zambia

Claimant

Meer Care & Desai (A firm)

1st Defendant

Cave Malik

2nd Defendant

Bimal Thaker

8th Defendant

Dr Chiluba

3rd Defendant

Kabwe

9th Defendant

Access Financial Services Ltd directors (D7, D10, D11)

Other Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—strike Out and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the re re re-amended Particulars of Claim should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the 2nd and 8th Defendants
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings are sufficiently particularised for allegations of fraud and conspiracy

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the objections raised by the 2nd and 8th Defendants were not sustainable, except for the issue of knowing receipt, which could be revisited after pleadings closed. The complexity and detail of the pleadings were justified by the nature of the case. The applications to strike out or for summary judgment were rejected, and the parties were directed to proceed to the next stage of pleadings.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out and for summary judgment dismissed; permission to amend pleadings granted.

Orders

  • Parties to proceed to next stage of pleadings
  • Written submissions on timetable and costs invited