Mohamedalmas Adam v Safvan Ayub Adam

Mohamedalmas Adam v Safvan Ayub Adam

The court found that the alleged inconsistencies in the Claimant's description of the 2023 Agreement were not so serious as to render the case abusive or unintelligible; the pleading, though less detailed than desired, was coherent and not in breach of rules. The reference to repudiatory breach did not allege automatic dissolution and was not misleading. The requests for further information were not reasonably necessary or proportionate to enable the Defendant to prepare his case, and no court order was warranted.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mohamedalmas Adam; Defendant/applicant: Safvan Ayub Adam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Further Information)
Outcome
Strike Out Application and Further Information Application both dismissed.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Particulars of Claim, Oral Agreements, Repudiatory Breach, Further Information Requests, Intellectual Property in Partnerships
Partnership Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Particulars of Claim Oral Agreements Repudiatory Breach Further Information Requests Intellectual Property in Partnerships

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamedalmas Adam

Claimant/respondent

Safvan Ayub Adam

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Further Information)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the Particulars of Claim should be struck out for vagueness, abuse of process, or inconsistency regarding the alleged 2023 Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the claim improperly alleges dissolution of partnership by repudiatory breach
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant should be ordered to provide further information in CPR-compliant form and about intellectual property

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the alleged inconsistencies in the Claimant's description of the 2023 Agreement were not so serious as to render the case abusive or unintelligible; the pleading, though less detailed than desired, was coherent and not in breach of rules. The reference to repudiatory breach did not allege automatic dissolution and was not misleading. The requests for further information were not reasonably necessary or proportionate to enable the Defendant to prepare his case, and no court order was warranted.

Court Disposition

Strike Out Application and Further Information Application both dismissed.