One Unique LLC v Kambiz Babaee & Ors

One Unique LLC v Kambiz Babaee & Ors

None of the communications relied upon in the pleadings were subject to without prejudice privilege as they did not constitute genuine settlement negotiations; there was no real risk of injustice justifying a stay of the civil proceedings due to parallel criminal proceedings; and the bankruptcy of the First Defendant did not warrant a stay as the claim is for fraud and the Trustee in Bankruptcy raised no objection.

Parties
Claimant: ONE UNIQUE LLC; First Defendant: Kambiz Babaee; Second Defendant: K10 Developments Limited; Third Defendant: K10 Management Account Limited; Fourth Defendant: K10 Group Limited; Fifth Defendant: Bhupen Varsani; Sixth Defendant: Ali Kian Shokrollah Babaee; Seventh Defendant: Ana Totoc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/fraud) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Stay)
Outcome
All applications by the First Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Without Prejudice Privilege, Stay of Proceedings, Bankruptcy and Civil Claims, Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Insolvency Law Strike Out Applications Without Prejudice Privilege Stay of Proceedings Bankruptcy and Civil Claims Parallel Criminal and Civil Proceedings

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ONE UNIQUE LLC

Claimant

Kambiz Babaee

First Defendant

K10 Developments Limited

Second Defendant

K10 Management Account Limited

Third Defendant

K10 Group Limited

Fourth Defendant

Bhupen Varsani

Fifth Defendant

Ali Kian Shokrollah Babaee

Sixth Defendant

Ana Totoc

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/fraud) / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether references to certain communications in the pleadings offend without prejudice privilege and should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether civil proceedings should be stayed pending parallel criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether civil proceedings should be stayed due to the bankruptcy of the First Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

None of the communications relied upon in the pleadings were subject to without prejudice privilege as they did not constitute genuine settlement negotiations; there was no real risk of injustice justifying a stay of the civil proceedings due to parallel criminal proceedings; and the bankruptcy of the First Defendant did not warrant a stay as the claim is for fraud and the Trustee in Bankruptcy raised no objection.

Court Disposition

All applications by the First Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Strike out application dismissed.
  • Application for stay pending criminal proceedings dismissed.