Mahmood v KPMG LLP & Anor [2025] EWHC 15 (Ch) (14 January 2025)

Mahmood v KPMG LLP & Anor [2025] EWHC 15 (Ch) (14 January 2025)

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b) because it duplicates a prior claim that was adjudicated and struck out on the merits, giving rise to cause of action and issue estoppel and the Henderson principle. Alternatively, even under Securum principles, no special reason exists to allow the claim to proceed. Additionally, the claimant has no standing to bring the claim as any cause of action is vested in the Official Receiver due to bankruptcy, and the claim is totally without merit.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 15 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Bashar Bin Mahmood; Defendant: KPMG LLP; Defendant: David James Costley-Wood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim (chancery Division) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out in its entirety as an abuse of process and for lack of standing; claim found totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Cause of Action Estoppel, Bankruptcy and Standing, Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment, Civil Restraint Orders
Civil Procedure Insolvency Professional Negligence Abuse of Process Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Cause of Action Estoppel Bankruptcy and Standing +3 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 6 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Bashar Bin Mahmood

Claimant

KPMG LLP

Defendant

David James Costley-Wood

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim (chancery Division) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b) due to duplication of an earlier claim
  2. 2 Whether cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, or the Henderson principle applies to bar the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim discloses any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a)

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b) because it duplicates a prior claim that was adjudicated and struck out on the merits, giving rise to cause of action and issue estoppel and the Henderson principle. Alternatively, even under Securum principles, no special reason exists to allow the claim to proceed. Additionally, the claimant has no standing to bring the claim as any cause of action is vested in the Official Receiver due to bankruptcy, and the claim is totally without merit.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out in its entirety as an abuse of process and for lack of standing; claim found totally without merit.

Orders

  • Claim struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) as an abuse of process
  • Claim struck out for lack of standing as any cause of action is vested in the Official Receiver