Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors [2007] EWHC 1743 (Ch) (26 July 2007)

Raja v Van Hoogstraten & Ors [2007] EWHC 1743 (Ch) (26 July 2007)

The defendants (the Estate and Healys) are not liable in trespass or conversion for acts of the Sequestrators done pursuant to the Amended Writ and subsequent authorisation orders, even if the Amended Writ was irregularly obtained, because the Sequestrators acted under the authority of court orders and the process,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1743 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Asgar Sabir Raja (representing the Estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja); Defendant: Nicholas van Hoogstraten; Intervenor: Tombstone Limited; Additional Defendant to the Sequestration Claim: Healys (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Trial of Liability on Claims in Trespass and Conversion Arising From Sequestration Orders
Outcome
Claims in trespass and conversion dismissed; defendants not liable for damages to Tombstone on these grounds.
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Contempt of Court, Trespass, Conversion, Damages, Freezing Orders, Beneficial Ownership, Solicitor Liability
Civil Procedure Tort Equity Sequestration Contempt of Court Trespass Conversion Damages +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asgar Sabir Raja (representing the Estate of the late Mohammed Sabir Raja)

Claimant

Nicholas van Hoogstraten

Defendant

Tombstone Limited

Intervenor

Healys (a firm)

Additional Defendant to the Sequestration Claim

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Trial of Liability on Claims in Trespass and Conversion Arising From Sequestration Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (the Estate and Healys) are liable in damages for losses occasioned to Tombstone by the issue of the Amended Writ and alleged acts of trespass and conversion by the Sequestrators
  2. 2 Whether the December 13th Order and Amended Writ were nullities or irregularly obtained and thus provide no protection to the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the acts of the Sequestrators constituted torts giving rise to damages claims

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants (the Estate and Healys) are not liable in trespass or conversion for acts of the Sequestrators done pursuant to the Amended Writ and subsequent authorisation orders, even if the Amended Writ was irregularly obtained, because the Sequestrators acted under the authority of court orders and the process, though flawed, does not give rise to actionable torts against the defendants. The December 13th Order and Amended Writ, while irregular, were not nullities, and the proper remedy was to challenge them directly, not to found liability in tort.

Court Disposition

Claims in trespass and conversion dismissed; defendants not liable for damages to Tombstone on these grounds.

Orders

  • Tombstone's claims in trespass and conversion against the Estate and Healys are dismissed.
  • No order for damages against the defendants on these claims.