Pourghazi v Kamyab & Ors [2019] EWHC 1300 (Ch) (22 May 2019)

Pourghazi v Kamyab & Ors [2019] EWHC 1300 (Ch) (22 May 2019)

The settlement agreement and Tomlin order, properly construed, settled only Mr Pourghazi's application and claim, not Investec's separate application. There was no agreement as to the costs of Investec's application, which remained at the court's discretion. The Chief Master was correct to dismiss Investec's application and order Investec to pay the Core Defendants' costs up to the date of assignment.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1300 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mohammed Ali Pourghazi; Defendant: Shahrokh Kamyab; Defendant: Sayyad Morteza Manafi; Defendant: Hamid Kamyab; Defendant: Neshat Mangili (on her own behalf and as representative of the estate of Zarrin Basiroloumi); Defendant: Iman Kamyab; Defendant: Estate of Zarrin Basiroloumi; Defendant: Arriane Farsian; Additional Party: HSBC Private Bank Limited; Additional Party/appellant: Investec Bank (Channel Islands) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Order of Chief Master Marsh Dated 29 October 2018
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Marshalling, Assignment of Claims, Costs Orders, Settlement Agreements, Tomlin Orders
Civil Procedure Property Law Marshalling Assignment of Claims Costs Orders Settlement Agreements Tomlin Orders

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Ali Pourghazi

Claimant

Shahrokh Kamyab

Defendant

Sayyad Morteza Manafi

Defendant

Hamid Kamyab

Defendant

Neshat Mangili (on her own behalf and as representative of the estate of Zarrin Basiroloumi)

Defendant

Iman Kamyab

Defendant

Estate of Zarrin Basiroloumi

Defendant

Arriane Farsian

Defendant

HSBC Private Bank Limited

Additional Party

Investec Bank (Channel Islands) Limited

Additional Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal From Order of Chief Master Marsh Dated 29 October 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement and Tomlin order settled Investec's application and costs liability
  2. 2 Proper construction of settlement documents regarding costs and dismissal of Investec's application

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement agreement and Tomlin order, properly construed, settled only Mr Pourghazi's application and claim, not Investec's separate application. There was no agreement as to the costs of Investec's application, which remained at the court's discretion. The Chief Master was correct to dismiss Investec's application and order Investec to pay the Core Defendants' costs up to the date of assignment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Investec's application dismissed
  • Investec to pay the Core Defendants' costs up to 12 January 2018