Saeed Akbar v Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar & Anor

Saeed Akbar v Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar & Anor

There have been serious and unremedied breaches of CPR 16.5 in the Defence, particularly regarding the proprietary claims (excluding Thackery Court and Flat 21 Bramerton). The breaches frustrate case management and obstruct the just disposal of proceedings. No good reason for non-compliance exists. The appropriate and proportionate response is to strike out paragraphs 30 to 69 of the Defence and permit judgment for the Claimant on the proprietary claims, subject to a final 14-day opportunity for the Defendants to apply to amend with a compliant draft Defence.

Parties
Claimant: Saeed Akbar; Defendant: Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar; Defendant: Sairah Kanwal Shah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Proprietary/trusts/fraud / Application to Strike Out Defence and for Judgment on Proprietary Claims
Outcome
Defence (paras 30-69) struck out for serial non-compliance with CPR 16.5; Claimant entitled to judgment on proprietary claims (excluding Thackery Court and Flat 21 Bramerton) unless Defendants apply to amend within 14 days.
Legal Topics
Strike Out of Defence, CPR 16.5 Compliance, Proprietary Claims, Quistclose Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Declaratory Relief, Case Management Sanctions
Civil Procedure Trusts Law Contract Law Fraud Strike Out of Defence CPR 16.5 Compliance Proprietary Claims Quistclose Trust +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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saeed Akbar

Claimant

Mohammed Sajead Ghaffar

Defendant

Sairah Kanwal Shah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proprietary/trusts/fraud / Application to Strike Out Defence and for Judgment on Proprietary Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defence should be struck out for failure to comply with CPR 16.5
  2. 2 Whether judgment should be entered for the Claimant on proprietary claims
  3. 3 Appropriate sanction for non-compliance with procedural rules

Ratio Decidendi

There have been serious and unremedied breaches of CPR 16.5 in the Defence, particularly regarding the proprietary claims (excluding Thackery Court and Flat 21 Bramerton). The breaches frustrate case management and obstruct the just disposal of proceedings. No good reason for non-compliance exists. The appropriate and proportionate response is to strike out paragraphs 30 to 69 of the Defence and permit judgment for the Claimant on the proprietary claims, subject to a final 14-day opportunity for the Defendants to apply to amend with a compliant draft Defence.

Court Disposition

Defence (paras 30-69) struck out for serial non-compliance with CPR 16.5; Claimant entitled to judgment on proprietary claims (excluding Thackery Court and Flat 21 Bramerton) unless Defendants apply to amend within 14 days.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 30 to 69 of the Defence struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and (c).
  • Claimant entitled to enter judgment on proprietary claims (excluding Thackery Court and Flat 21 Bramerton) after 14 days unless Defendants apply to amend Defence with a compliant draft.