Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors [2016] EWHC 2521 (Ch) (14 October 2016)

Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors [2016] EWHC 2521 (Ch) (14 October 2016)

The claims against all defendants except Mr Bloomfield have no real prospect of success. There is no enforceable contract for transfer of property, no evidence of agency, and no material to support economic torts or sham transactions. The procedural decision not to adjourn was not erroneous, and the substantive strike out and summary judgment orders stand.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2521 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant and Claimant: Mohammad Reza Ghadami; Respondent and Defendant: Paul Bloomfield; Respondent and Defendant: Philip James Saunders; Respondent and Defendant: Paresh Kantilal Chohan; Respondent and Defendant: Jan Bonde Nielsen; Respondent and Defendant: Peter Bonde Neilsen; Respondent and Defendant: Saif Durbar; Respondent and Defendant: Mark Rhodes; Respondent and Defendant: Mahendra Narottam Bakhda; Respondent and Defendant: David John Risbey; Respondent and Defendant: Kenneth John Fincken; Respondent and Defendant: Larios Properties Ltd; Respondent and Defendant: Festio Investments Limited; Respondent and Defendant: Belgrave Capital Limited; Respondent and Defendant: Braxa Investments International Corporation; Respondent and Defendant: Beacon Industries Corporation; Respondent and Defendant: Lynn Properties Limited; Respondent and Defendant: Vitala Investment Holding Limited; Respondent and Defendant: Merix International Ventures Limited; Respondent and Defendant: 41 UGS Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Application to Set Aside Summary Judgment/strike Out / Post Summary Judgment, Appeal and Set Aside Application
Outcome
Appeal and application to set aside dismissed; strike out and summary judgment orders upheld.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Breach of Contract, Economic Torts, Conspiracy, Agency, Proprietary Estoppel, Specific Performance
Civil Procedure Contract Law Property Law Tort Law Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment Breach of Contract Economic Torts +4 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Reza Ghadami

Appellant and Claimant

Paul Bloomfield

Respondent and Defendant

Philip James Saunders

Respondent and Defendant

Paresh Kantilal Chohan

Respondent and Defendant

Jan Bonde Nielsen

Respondent and Defendant

Peter Bonde Neilsen

Respondent and Defendant

Saif Durbar

Respondent and Defendant

Mark Rhodes

Respondent and Defendant

Mahendra Narottam Bakhda

Respondent and Defendant

David John Risbey

Respondent and Defendant

Kenneth John Fincken

Respondent and Defendant

Larios Properties Ltd

Respondent and Defendant

Festio Investments Limited

Respondent and Defendant

Belgrave Capital Limited

Respondent and Defendant

Braxa Investments International Corporation

Respondent and Defendant

Beacon Industries Corporation

Respondent and Defendant

Lynn Properties Limited

Respondent and Defendant

Vitala Investment Holding Limited

Respondent and Defendant

Merix International Ventures Limited

Respondent and Defendant

41 UGS Inc

Respondent and Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Application to Set Aside Summary Judgment/strike Out / Post Summary Judgment, Appeal and Set Aside Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims against defendants other than Mr Bloomfield have a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether Mr Bloomfield acted as agent for Jan Bonde Nielsen or Saif Durbar
  3. 3 Whether there was an enforceable contract for transfer of property

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against all defendants except Mr Bloomfield have no real prospect of success. There is no enforceable contract for transfer of property, no evidence of agency, and no material to support economic torts or sham transactions. The procedural decision not to adjourn was not erroneous, and the substantive strike out and summary judgment orders stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal and application to set aside dismissed; strike out and summary judgment orders upheld.

Orders

  • Claims against all defendants except Mr Bloomfield struck out as totally without merit.
  • Judgments against Mr Risbey and Mr Fincken set aside.