Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors

Permission to amend the defence was refused because the application was late, lacked adequate particularisation and evidential support, and failed to establish an arguable case that the convictions of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke were unsafe or that they did not commit the murder. The statutory presumption of guilt arising...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Ashgar Sabir Raja (representing the interests of the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja); Defendant: Mr Nicholas van Hoogstraten; Defendant: Stitchacre Limited; Defendant: Rarebargain Limited; Defendant: Castries Land Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Permission to Amend Defence
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Admissibility of Criminal Convictions in Civil Proceedings, Timeliness of Applications, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Evidence Amendment of Pleadings Admissibility of Criminal Convictions in Civil Proceedings Timeliness of Applications Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Ashgar Sabir Raja (representing the interests of the estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja)

Claimant

Mr Nicholas van Hoogstraten

Defendant

Stitchacre Limited

Defendant

Rarebargain Limited

Defendant

Castries Land Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Permission to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to amend his defence to challenge the convictions of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke for the murder of Mr Raja
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's application is timely and adequately supported
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can rebut the presumption of guilt arising from criminal convictions under section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the defence was refused because the application was late, lacked adequate particularisation and evidential support, and failed to establish an arguable case that the convictions of Mr Knapp and Mr Croke were unsafe or that they did not commit the murder. The statutory presumption of guilt arising from their convictions stands unless rebutted on the balance of probabilities, which was not achieved.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend defence refused
  • Existing timetable and trial directions remain in force