Karim v Charkham & Ors [2014] EWHC 497 (Admin) (26 February 2014)

Karim v Charkham & Ors [2014] EWHC 497 (Admin) (26 February 2014)

The third claim was struck out as an abuse of process because all issues raised could and should be determined in existing proceedings, and the claimant's conduct demonstrated persistent, meritless litigation. An extended civil restraint order was justified due to repeated, baseless claims and disregard for court orders.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 497 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Shamiim Akhtar Karim; Defendant: Samuel Maurice Charkham; Defendant: Waterside Finance Limited; Defendant: Benjamin Tobin; Defendant: Simon Eric Tilsiter; Defendant: Terry Newman; Defendant: Mogul International Management Consultants Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim and for Extended Civil Restraint Order / Judgment After Hearing on Strike Out and Restraint Order Applications
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process; extended civil restraint order imposed; costs awarded on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Civil Restraint Orders, Mortgage Enforcement, Fraud Allegations, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Property Law Financial Regulation Abuse of Process Civil Restraint Orders Mortgage Enforcement Fraud Allegations Costs Assessment

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shamiim Akhtar Karim

Claimant

Samuel Maurice Charkham

Defendant

Waterside Finance Limited

Defendant

Benjamin Tobin

Defendant

Simon Eric Tilsiter

Defendant

Terry Newman

Defendant

Mogul International Management Consultants Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim and for Extended Civil Restraint Order / Judgment After Hearing on Strike Out and Restraint Order Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third claim discloses reasonable grounds for bringing a fresh action
  2. 2 Whether the third claim constitutes an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether an extended civil restraint order should be imposed against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The third claim was struck out as an abuse of process because all issues raised could and should be determined in existing proceedings, and the claimant's conduct demonstrated persistent, meritless litigation. An extended civil restraint order was justified due to repeated, baseless claims and disregard for court orders.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process; extended civil restraint order imposed; costs awarded on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • The third claim HQ13X06029 is struck out.
  • An extended civil restraint order is imposed against the claimant for two years, prohibiting new proceedings or applications relating to the subject matter without permission.