Manolete Partners PLC v Mohammed Jawed Karim & Ors

Manolete Partners PLC v Mohammed Jawed Karim & Ors

The application for a stay or adjournment was dismissed because the Defendants failed to demonstrate that the First Defendant's ill health rendered him incapable of conducting the litigation, and provided insufficient evidence of financial incapacity or efforts to secure representation. The Defendants' persistent non-compliance with disclosure obligations justified the making of an unless order with strike out as the sanction for further default.

Parties
Claimant: Manolete Partners PLC; Defendant: Mohammed Jawed Karim; Defendant: Mohammed Basser Karim; Defendant: Mohammed Fahim Karim; Defendant: Mariam Karim; Defendant: Anna Racko Karim; Defendant: Richard Slade and Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay/adjournment and Unless Order
Outcome
Application for stay/adjournment dismissed; unless order granted for disclosure.
Legal Topics
Adjournment of Trial, Disclosure Obligations, Fiduciary Duties, Unless Order, Strike Out of Defence
Civil Procedure Company Law Adjournment of Trial Disclosure Obligations Fiduciary Duties Unless Order Strike Out of Defence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manolete Partners PLC

Claimant

Mohammed Jawed Karim

Defendant

Mohammed Basser Karim

Defendant

Mohammed Fahim Karim

Defendant

Mariam Karim

Defendant

Anna Racko Karim

Defendant

Richard Slade and Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay/adjournment and Unless Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are entitled to a stay or adjournment of the trial on grounds of ill health and lack of funds for legal representation
  2. 2 Whether an unless order should be made for disclosure failures

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay or adjournment was dismissed because the Defendants failed to demonstrate that the First Defendant's ill health rendered him incapable of conducting the litigation, and provided insufficient evidence of financial incapacity or efforts to secure representation. The Defendants' persistent non-compliance with disclosure obligations justified the making of an unless order with strike out as the sanction for further default.

Court Disposition

Application for stay/adjournment dismissed; unless order granted for disclosure.

Orders

  • Defendants to provide disclosure by 28 February 2024; failure to do so will result in their defences being struck out and Claimant entitled to apply for judgment.
  • Pre-trial review on 5 March 2024 vacated and to be relisted on or about 19 March 2024.