Rahman v Rahman & Ors [2019] EWHC 1826 (Ch) (11 July 2019)

Rahman v Rahman & Ors [2019] EWHC 1826 (Ch) (11 July 2019)

The application to vary the restraint injunctions in the Arnold order was refused because Azizur Rahman failed to provide adequate disclosure of his personal finances, did not give a sufficient funds assurance, and did not demonstrate a genuine change in circumstances justifying the variation. The risk of asset dissipation remained, and the original order was the result of agreement between the parties after full consideration of the relevant facts. The court found no abuse of process or obstruction by the respondent, and no basis to depart from the agreed terms.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1826 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mr Habibur Rahman; Defendant/applicant: Mr Azizur Rahman; Defendant/applicant: Icon College of Technology and Management Ltd; Defendant/applicant: Icon Technology (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Liability Trial, Application to Vary Injunction (restraint) Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Variation of Freezing/restraint Orders, Shareholder Rights, Interim Payments, Injunctions, Damages Assessment
Company Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Variation of Freezing/restraint Orders Shareholder Rights Interim Payments Injunctions Damages Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Habibur Rahman

Claimant/respondent

Mr Azizur Rahman

Defendant/applicant

Icon College of Technology and Management Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Icon Technology (UK) Ltd

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Liability Trial, Application to Vary Injunction (restraint) Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint injunctions in the Arnold order should be varied to permit payments/dividends to Azizur Rahman and Dr Nabi from Icon College Ltd beyond salary and expenses
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient justification or change in circumstances to warrant variation of the agreed restraint injunctions
  3. 3 Whether Azizur Rahman has provided adequate disclosure and assurance regarding the sufficiency of funds and risk of dissipation

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the restraint injunctions in the Arnold order was refused because Azizur Rahman failed to provide adequate disclosure of his personal finances, did not give a sufficient funds assurance, and did not demonstrate a genuine change in circumstances justifying the variation. The risk of asset dissipation remained, and the original order was the result of agreement between the parties after full consideration of the relevant facts. The court found no abuse of process or obstruction by the respondent, and no basis to depart from the agreed terms.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • The application to vary the restraint injunctions in the Arnold order is dismissed.
  • The original terms of the Arnold order remain in force.