Rahbarpoor & Anor v Suliman & Ors [2021] EWHC 2686 (Ch) (16 September 2021)

Rahbarpoor & Anor v Suliman & Ors [2021] EWHC 2686 (Ch) (16 September 2021)

Permission to rely on spent convictions granted as justice cannot be done without admission; summary judgment refused due to factual disputes requiring trial; security for costs ordered against defendants due to strong evidence of dishonesty and non-compliance; further information application refused as not justified.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2686 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Sayed Ahmed Rahbarpoor; Claimant: Brook Green (London) Associates LLP; Defendant: Khalid Suliman; Defendant: Saad Abdul Jalil; Defendant: Persons Unknown; Defendant: Naplex Properties Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Possession Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial
Outcome
Claimants granted permission to rely on spent convictions; summary judgment refused; security for costs of £50,000 ordered against defendants; defendants' application for further information refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Spent Convictions, Disclosure, Identity Verification, Forgery
Property Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Security for Costs Spent Convictions Disclosure Identity Verification Forgery

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sayed Ahmed Rahbarpoor

Claimant

Brook Green (London) Associates LLP

Claimant

Khalid Suliman

Defendant

Saad Abdul Jalil

Defendant

Persons Unknown

Defendant

Naplex Properties Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Possession Proceedings / Interlocutory Applications Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to rely on spent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the claimants
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to rely on spent convictions granted as justice cannot be done without admission; summary judgment refused due to factual disputes requiring trial; security for costs ordered against defendants due to strong evidence of dishonesty and non-compliance; further information application refused as not justified.

Court Disposition

Claimants granted permission to rely on spent convictions; summary judgment refused; security for costs of £50,000 ordered against defendants; defendants' application for further information refused.

Orders

  • Claimants granted permission to rely on spent convictions under Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 s.7(3)
  • Summary judgment application refused