Amr Danyall Marshal & Ors v Awais Javed & Ors

Amr Danyall Marshal & Ors v Awais Javed & Ors

The report of the forensic accountant in this case does not constitute expert evidence under CPR Part 35 as it is primarily a summary of factual material and not an exercise of recognised expertise; it is at best hearsay evidence of fact and does not require permission under CPR Part 35.

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
12 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Procedural direction given; no substantive determination of claims or defences.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Forensic Accountancy, Hearsay, CPR Part 35
Civil Procedure Evidence Expert Evidence Forensic Accountancy Hearsay CPR Part 35

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 the forensic accountant's report constitutes expert evidence under CPR Part 35
  2. 2 Admissibility and status of forensic accountancy evidence as hearsay or expert opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The report of the forensic accountant in this case does not constitute expert evidence under CPR Part 35 as it is primarily a summary of factual material and not an exercise of recognised expertise; it is at best hearsay evidence of fact and does not require permission under CPR Part 35.

Court Disposition

Procedural direction given; no substantive determination of claims or defences.

Orders

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