Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima

The facts established by Mr Gerrard's third witness statement do not affect any substantive findings in the judgment. The new evidence supports the finding that RAKIA failed to prove the falsity of stories about human rights violations and does not impact the hacking issue. Even if Mr Gerrard's credibility were undermined, the conclusion on hacking responsibility was not dependent on his evidence but on a broad assessment of all evidence. It is not just or proportionate to reopen the judgment or permit further cross-examination.

Parties
Claimant: Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority; Defendant: Farhad Azima
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial, Addendum to Judgment Prior to Final Order
Outcome
Judgment not reopened; final order to be made as per original judgment with admission of Mr Gerrard's third witness statement.
Legal Topics
Correction of Evidence, Witness Credibility, Solicitor's Duties, Human Rights Abuses, Hacking Allegations
Civil Procedure Human Rights Professional Conduct Correction of Evidence Witness Credibility Solicitor's Duties Human Rights Abuses Hacking Allegations

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority

Claimant

Farhad Azima

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial, Addendum to Judgment Prior to Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment should be reopened in light of Mr Gerrard's corrective witness statement
  2. 2 Whether Mr Gerrard's credibility as a witness is fatally undermined by his admitted errors
  3. 3 Whether the new evidence affects the court's findings on hacking responsibility and human rights abuses

Ratio Decidendi

The facts established by Mr Gerrard's third witness statement do not affect any substantive findings in the judgment. The new evidence supports the finding that RAKIA failed to prove the falsity of stories about human rights violations and does not impact the hacking issue. Even if Mr Gerrard's credibility were undermined, the conclusion on hacking responsibility was not dependent on his evidence but on a broad assessment of all evidence. It is not just or proportionate to reopen the judgment or permit further cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Judgment not reopened; final order to be made as per original judgment with admission of Mr Gerrard's third witness statement.

Orders

  • Mr Gerrard's third witness statement admitted as evidence.
  • Final order to be made based on the judgment as it stands.