Akbar v Ghaffar & Anor [2024] EWHC 50 (Ch) (17 January 2024)

Akbar v Ghaffar & Anor [2024] EWHC 50 (Ch) (17 January 2024)

The Defence was struck out because it failed in material respects to comply with CPR 16.5 by not properly addressing or pleading to key allegations in the Particulars of Claim, rendering it vague, incoherent, and obstructive to the just disposal of the proceedings. The seriousness and extent of non-compliance, absence of good reason, and the Defendants' failure to remedy breaches despite opportunities justified the sanction of strike out and entry of judgment for the Claimant on proprietary claims.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 50 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Saeed Akbar; Defendant: Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar; Defendant: Sairah Kanwal Shah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Chancery (business and Property Courts) / Application to Strike Out Defence and for Judgment
Outcome
Defence struck out; judgment for Claimant on proprietary claims
Legal Topics
Strike Out of Defence, CPR 16.5 Compliance, Quistclose Trusts, Purpose Trusts, Proprietary Claims, Freezing Injunctions, Summary Judgment, Relief From Sanctions
Civil Procedure Trusts Law Fraud Contract Law Strike Out of Defence CPR 16.5 Compliance Quistclose Trusts Purpose Trusts +4 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saeed Akbar

Claimant

Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar

Defendant

Sairah Kanwal Shah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Chancery (business and Property Courts) / Application to Strike Out Defence and for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence should be struck out for failure to comply with CPR 16.5
  2. 2 Whether the Defence constitutes an abuse of process or obstructs the just disposal of proceedings under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and (c)
  3. 3 Whether judgment should be entered for the Claimant on proprietary claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Defence was struck out because it failed in material respects to comply with CPR 16.5 by not properly addressing or pleading to key allegations in the Particulars of Claim, rendering it vague, incoherent, and obstructive to the just disposal of the proceedings. The seriousness and extent of non-compliance, absence of good reason, and the Defendants' failure to remedy breaches despite opportunities justified the sanction of strike out and entry of judgment for the Claimant on proprietary claims.

Court Disposition

Defence struck out; judgment for Claimant on proprietary claims

Orders

  • The Defence of both Defendants is struck out in its entirety.
  • Judgment is entered for the Claimant, Saeed Akbar, on the proprietary claims as set out in the draft order.