Pourghazi v Kamyab & Ors

Pourghazi v Kamyab & Ors

The settlement agreement and Tomlin order do not resolve the position between Investec and the Core Defendants; Investec remained a party to the proceedings after assignment and is liable for costs up to the date of assignment. Investec's marshalling application should be dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Mohammed Ali Pourghazi; Defendant: Sharokh Kamyab; Defendant: Sayyad Morteza Manafi; Defendant: Hamid Kamyab; Defendant: Neshat Mangili; Defendant: Imam 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 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Settlement Application for Dismissal and Costs
Outcome
Investec's marshalling application dismissed; Investec ordered to pay Core Defendants' costs up to the date of assignment.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Claims, Marshalling of Securities, Costs Orders, Party Removal, Construction of Settlement Agreements
Civil Procedure Property Law Assignment of Claims Marshalling of Securities Costs Orders Party Removal Construction of Settlement 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Ali Pourghazi

Claimant

Sharokh Kamyab

Defendant

Sayyad Morteza Manafi

Defendant

Hamid Kamyab

Defendant

Neshat Mangili

Defendant

Imam 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 Limited

Additional Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Settlement Application for Dismissal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Investec Bank (Channel Islands) Limited has residual liability for costs after assignment of its claim to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement and Tomlin order preclude the Core Defendants from pursuing costs against Investec
  3. 3 Whether Investec's marshalling application should be dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement agreement and Tomlin order do not resolve the position between Investec and the Core Defendants; Investec remained a party to the proceedings after assignment and is liable for costs up to the date of assignment. Investec's marshalling application should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Investec's marshalling application dismissed; Investec ordered to pay Core Defendants' costs up to the date of assignment.

Orders

  • Investec's application for marshalling dated 21 April 2016 dismissed.
  • Investec to pay Core Defendants' costs of the marshalling claim up to 12 January 2018.