Mashal & Ors v Javed & Ors [2025] EWHC 3195 (Ch) (05 December 2025)

Mashal & Ors v Javed & Ors [2025] EWHC 3195 (Ch) (05 December 2025)

The report of the forensic accountant in this case does not constitute expert evidence under CPR Part 35 because it merely summarises and organises factual material from documents, without providing expert opinion within the accountant's recognised field. Such reports are hearsay evidence of fact or submissions, not expert evidence requiring permission.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3195 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: AMR DANYAAL MASHAL; Claimant: ABDUR RAHMAN HASSAN MASHAL; Claimant: SUMAIA MASHAL; Claimant: HARF LIMITED; Defendant: AWAIS JAVED; Defendant: ZED BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED; Defendant: ZED RENTAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Directions regarding expert evidence clarified; no substantive order on the merits.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Forensic Accountancy, Hearsay Evidence, CPR Part 35, Civil Evidence Act 1972
Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Forensic Accountancy Hearsay Evidence CPR Part 35 Civil Evidence Act 1972

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

Parties

AMR DANYAAL MASHAL

Claimant

ABDUR RAHMAN HASSAN MASHAL

Claimant

SUMAIA MASHAL

Claimant

HARF LIMITED

Claimant

AWAIS JAVED

Defendant

ZED BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LIMITED

Defendant

ZED RENTAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether forensic accountancy reports constitute expert evidence under CPR Part 35
  2. 2 Admissibility and status of forensic accountant's report as evidence or submission
  3. 3 Proper approach to hearsay and expert opinion in accountancy reports

Ratio Decidendi

The report of the forensic accountant in this case does not constitute expert evidence under CPR Part 35 because it merely summarises and organises factual material from documents, without providing expert opinion within the accountant's recognised field. Such reports are hearsay evidence of fact or submissions, not expert evidence requiring permission.

Court Disposition

Directions regarding expert evidence clarified; no substantive order on the merits.

Orders

  • No need for joint statement or cross-examination of forensic accountant.
  • Trial timetable adjusted accordingly.