Sunil Gupta & Anor v Olgun Halil Shah & Ors

Sunil Gupta & Anor v Olgun Halil Shah & Ors

There is no real prospect of the claimants succeeding at trial against Kadir or Meltem on any of the continuing claims, including knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, conspiracy, deceit, or unjust enrichment, as there is no evidence they received any further sums from the misappropriated fund beyond the £100,000 already repaid, nor any evidence of their knowledge or dishonesty. There is no compelling reason for trial, and summary judgment is appropriate.

Parties
Claimant: Sunil Gupta; Claimant: Sunil Gupta. M. D. LLC d/b/a Retina Speciality Institute; Defendant: Olgun Halil Shah; Defendant: Lex Foundation Limited; Defendant: Nurel Halil Shah; Defendant: Kadir Halil Shah; Defendant: Kerem Halil Shah; Defendant: Meltem Halil Shah
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Summary Judgment and Strike Out
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Fourth and Sixth Defendants (Kadir and Meltem) on all continuing claims; application for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Knowing Receipt, Dishonest Assistance, Unjust Enrichment, Conspiracy, Deceit
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Fraud Summary Judgment Strike Out Knowing Receipt Dishonest Assistance Unjust Enrichment +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunil Gupta

Claimant

Sunil Gupta. M. D. LLC d/b/a Retina Speciality Institute

Claimant

Olgun Halil Shah

Defendant

Lex Foundation Limited

Defendant

Nurel Halil Shah

Defendant

Kadir Halil Shah

Defendant

Kerem Halil Shah

Defendant

Meltem Halil Shah

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Summary Judgment and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants have a real prospect of success against the Fourth and Sixth Defendants (Kadir and Meltem) on claims of knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, conspiracy, deceit, and unjust enrichment; Whether there is a compelling reason for trial; Whether the proprietary claims to certain sums can succeed; Whether the applications for summary judgment and strike out should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no real prospect of the claimants succeeding at trial against Kadir or Meltem on any of the continuing claims, including knowing receipt, dishonest assistance, conspiracy, deceit, or unjust enrichment, as there is no evidence they received any further sums from the misappropriated fund beyond the £100,000 already repaid, nor any evidence of their knowledge or dishonesty. There is no compelling reason for trial, and summary judgment is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Fourth and Sixth Defendants (Kadir and Meltem) on all continuing claims; application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Kadir Halil Shah and Meltem Halil Shah on all continuing claims in the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim;
  • Refusal of the claimants' application for adjournment;