Hashwani v Jivraj [2015] EWHC 998 (Comm) (23 April 2015)

Hashwani v Jivraj [2015] EWHC 998 (Comm) (23 April 2015)

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because Mr Hashwani had previously denied the existence of the arbitration and engaged Mr Jivraj in litigation on a different basis, only to reverse his position after the Supreme Court's decision. This amounted to vexing Mr Jivraj with litigation twice and constituted harassment. Additionally, the arbitration before Mr Ahamed had ended many years ago, there was inordinate and inexcusable delay, the terms of the arbitration were personal to Mr Ahamed and did not contemplate a replacement, and a fair trial was no longer possible. Each of Mr Jivraj's grounds of opposition was upheld.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 998 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Sadruddin Hashwani; Defendant: Nurdin Jivraj
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (arbitration Related) / Judgment on Strike Out Application and Revised Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process; all grounds of opposition upheld.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Appointment of Arbitrators, Delay in Proceedings, Finality of Arbitration, Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements
Arbitration Commercial Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Appointment of Arbitrators Delay in Proceedings Finality of Arbitration Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sadruddin Hashwani

Claimant

Nurdin Jivraj

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (arbitration Related) / Judgment on Strike Out Application and Revised Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's revised claim is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration before Mr Ahamed had ended such that no new arbitrator could be appointed
  3. 3 Whether there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out as an abuse of process because Mr Hashwani had previously denied the existence of the arbitration and engaged Mr Jivraj in litigation on a different basis, only to reverse his position after the Supreme Court's decision. This amounted to vexing Mr Jivraj with litigation twice and constituted harassment. Additionally, the arbitration before Mr Ahamed had ended many years ago, there was inordinate and inexcusable delay, the terms of the arbitration were personal to Mr Ahamed and did not contemplate a replacement, and a fair trial was no longer possible. Each of Mr Jivraj's grounds of opposition was upheld.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process; all grounds of opposition upheld.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in its entirety
  • No appointment of replacement arbitrator