Berry Trade Ltd. & Anor v Moussavi & Ors

Berry Trade Ltd. & Anor v Moussavi & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge applied the wrong legal test by admitting the evidence based on a 'serious and substantial risk of perjury' rather than requiring unambiguous impropriety. The evidence did not show unambiguous impropriety but at most an inconsistency between without prejudice statements and the pleaded case, which is insufficient to admit such evidence. Therefore, the exception to the without prejudice rule did not apply, and the evidence was inadmissible.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Berry Trade Ltd. and Vitol Energy (Bermuda) Ltd.; 7th Defendant/appellant: Mohammad Ghadimi-Gheshlaghi; Defendants: Kaveh Moussavi and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Rule, Admissibility of Evidence, Exceptions to Privilege, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Evidence Without Prejudice Rule Admissibility of Evidence Exceptions to Privilege Summary Judgment

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berry Trade Ltd. and Vitol Energy (Bermuda) Ltd.

Claimants/respondents

Mohammad Ghadimi-Gheshlaghi

7th Defendant/appellant

Kaveh Moussavi and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by the 7th Defendant in without prejudice meetings are admissible as evidence under the 'unambiguous impropriety' exception to the without prejudice rule.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court judge applied the correct legal test for admitting such evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge applied the wrong legal test by admitting the evidence based on a 'serious and substantial risk of perjury' rather than requiring unambiguous impropriety. The evidence did not show unambiguous impropriety but at most an inconsistency between without prejudice statements and the pleaded case, which is insufficient to admit such evidence. Therefore, the exception to the without prejudice rule did not apply, and the evidence was inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside
  • Claimants' application to adduce certain witness statements refused