Al-Muslimani v Ghazarian [2024] EWHC 3601 (KB) (09 December 2024)

Al-Muslimani v Ghazarian [2024] EWHC 3601 (KB) (09 December 2024)

The court held that, on the evidence, notice of dishonour was not required as the defendant's account had insufficient funds at all material times, and thus the defence on this ground had no real prospect of success. However, the court found that the construction and effect of the September 2019 agreement could not be determined summarily due to uncertainties about the full terms and factual matrix, and that the defendant had a real prospect of establishing that the 2019 agreement superseded the cheque obligations. The claimant was permitted to amend to plead the 2019 agreement, and the application for summary judgment was adjourned.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3601 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Hassan Ali Bin Ali Al-Muslimani; Defendant: Hrach Ghazarian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (king's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out Under CPR 3.4 and 24.2
Outcome
Application for summary judgment/strike out adjourned; permission granted to claimant to amend to plead the 2019 agreement; permission for consequential amendments to defendant; further applications required for additional amendments.
Legal Topics
Cheques and Bills of Exchange, Notice of Dishonour, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Contractual Construction, Settlement Agreements
Commercial Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Cheques and Bills of Exchange Notice of Dishonour Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Contractual Construction +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hassan Ali Bin Ali Al-Muslimani

Claimant

Hrach Ghazarian

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (king's Bench Division) / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out Under CPR 3.4 and 24.2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether notice of dishonour was required for liability on the dishonoured cheque under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882
  2. 2 Whether the September 2019 agreement superseded the obligations under the December 2017 cheque
  3. 3 Whether the defence disclosed any real prospect of success or reasonable grounds for defending the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the evidence, notice of dishonour was not required as the defendant's account had insufficient funds at all material times, and thus the defence on this ground had no real prospect of success. However, the court found that the construction and effect of the September 2019 agreement could not be determined summarily due to uncertainties about the full terms and factual matrix, and that the defendant had a real prospect of establishing that the 2019 agreement superseded the cheque obligations. The claimant was permitted to amend to plead the 2019 agreement, and the application for summary judgment was adjourned.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment/strike out adjourned; permission granted to claimant to amend to plead the 2019 agreement; permission for consequential amendments to defendant; further applications required for additional amendments.

Orders

  • Claimant granted permission to amend particulars of claim to include claim based on the 2019 agreement.
  • Defendant granted permission to amend defence consequentially; further amendments require application.