Invest Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammed El-Husseini & Ors

Invest Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammed El-Husseini & Ors

The Notice to Prove was served out of time as the relevant deadline was the date for primary witness statements, not supplemental statements. The Bank's breach was serious and significant, with no good reason for the delay. The application for relief from sanctions serves no useful purpose because the Bank is not pleading forgery and cannot covertly challenge the authenticity of the Divorce Agreement. Relief from sanctions is refused.

Parties
Claimant: Invest Bank PSC; Defendant: Ahmad Mohammed El-Husseini; Defendant: Mohammed Ahmad El-Husseiny; Defendant: Alexander Ahmad El-Husseiny; Defendant: Ziad Ahmad El-Husseiny; Defendant: Ramzy Ahmad El-Husseiny; Defendant: Joan Eva Henry; Defendant: Virtue Trustees (Switzerland) A. G.; Defendant: Global Green Development Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application / Application for Relief From Sanctions Under CPR 3.9
Outcome
Application for relief from sanctions refused
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Notice to Prove Documents, Authenticity of Documents, CPR 32.19, Litigation Procedure
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Notice to Prove Documents Authenticity of Documents CPR 32.19 Litigation Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Invest Bank PSC

Claimant

Ahmad Mohammed El-Husseini

Defendant

Mohammed Ahmad El-Husseiny

Defendant

Alexander Ahmad El-Husseiny

Defendant

Ziad Ahmad El-Husseiny

Defendant

Ramzy Ahmad El-Husseiny

Defendant

Joan Eva Henry

Defendant

Virtue Trustees (Switzerland) A. G.

Defendant

Global Green Development Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Application / Application for Relief From Sanctions Under CPR 3.9

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank's application for relief from sanctions for late service of a Notice to Prove is necessary or should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Notice to Prove was served in time under CPR 32.19
  3. 3 Whether the Bank can challenge the authenticity of the Divorce Agreement without pleading forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice to Prove was served out of time as the relevant deadline was the date for primary witness statements, not supplemental statements. The Bank's breach was serious and significant, with no good reason for the delay. The application for relief from sanctions serves no useful purpose because the Bank is not pleading forgery and cannot covertly challenge the authenticity of the Divorce Agreement. Relief from sanctions is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for relief from sanctions refused

Orders

  • The Bank's application for relief from sanctions is dismissed.