Pourghazi v Kamyab & Ors

Pourghazi v Kamyab & Ors

The settlement agreement and Tomlin order did not settle Investec's application or its costs liability; only Mr Pourghazi's application and claim were settled. Investec remained exposed to a costs order, and the Chief Master was correct to dismiss Investec's application and order costs against it.

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 pursuant to CPR R.19.8); Defendant: Iman Kamyab; Defendant: Estate of Zarrin Basiroloumi; Defendant: Arriane Farsian; Additional Party: HSBC Private Bank Limited; Additional Party: Investec Bank (Channel Islands) Limited; Additional Party: Sun Investments Trading Ltd; Respondents: Third and Fourth Defendants (Core Defendants)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
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 2 Authorities cited 9 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 pursuant to CPR R.19.8)

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

Sun Investments Trading Ltd

Additional Party

Third and Fourth Defendants (Core Defendants)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement and Tomlin order settled Investec's application and costs liability
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Master was correct to dismiss Investec's application and order costs against Investec

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement agreement and Tomlin order did not settle Investec's application or its costs liability; only Mr Pourghazi's application and claim were settled. Investec remained exposed to a costs order, and the Chief Master was correct to dismiss Investec's application and order costs against it.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

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