Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors
The claimant's claims against the defendants other than Mr Bloomfield were properly struck out as they disclosed no real prospect of success, lacked proper pleading of agency, conspiracy, or enforceable contract, and the economic tort claims were wholly unparticularised and fanciful. The Master did not err in refusing an adjournment or in his case management decisions. The appeal and application to set aside were dismissed.
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Mohammad Reza Ghadami; First Defendant: Paul Bloomfield; Second Defendant: Philip James Saunders; Third Defendant: Paresh Kantilal Chohan; Fourth Defendant: Jan Bonde Nielsen; Fifth Defendant: Peter Bonde Neilsen; Sixth Defendant: Saif Durbar; Seventh Defendant: Mark Rhodes; Eighth Defendant: Mahendra Narottam Bakhda; Ninth Defendant: David John Risbey; Tenth Defendant: Kenneth John Fincken; Eleventh Defendant: Larios Properties Ltd; Twelfth Defendant: Festio Investments Limited; Thirteenth Defendant: Belgrave Capital Limited; Fourteenth Defendant: Braxa Investments International Corporation; Fifteenth Defendant: Beacon Industries Corporation; Sixteenth Defendant: Lynn Properties Limited; Seventeenth Defendant: Vitala Investment Holding Limited; Eighteenth Defendant: Merix International Ventures Limited; Nineteenth Defendant: 41 UGS Inc
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 14 October 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment on Appeal and Application to Set Aside Summary Disposal/strike Out Order
- Outcome
- application and appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Breach of Contract, Economic Torts, Conspiracy, Agency, Proprietary Estoppel, Adjournment, Set Aside Judgment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mohammad Reza Ghadami
Appellant/claimant
Paul Bloomfield
First Defendant
Philip James Saunders
Second Defendant
Paresh Kantilal Chohan
Third Defendant
Jan Bonde Nielsen
Fourth Defendant
Peter Bonde Neilsen
Fifth Defendant
Saif Durbar
Sixth Defendant
Mark Rhodes
Seventh Defendant
Mahendra Narottam Bakhda
Eighth Defendant
David John Risbey
Ninth Defendant
Kenneth John Fincken
Tenth Defendant
Larios Properties Ltd
Eleventh Defendant
Festio Investments Limited
Twelfth Defendant
Belgrave Capital Limited
Thirteenth Defendant
Braxa Investments International Corporation
Fourteenth Defendant
Beacon Industries Corporation
Fifteenth Defendant
Lynn Properties Limited
Sixteenth Defendant
Vitala Investment Holding Limited
Seventeenth Defendant
Merix International Ventures Limited
Eighteenth Defendant
41 UGS Inc
Nineteenth Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Appeal and Application to Set Aside Summary Disposal/strike Out Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Master erred in refusing an adjournment and striking out the claims against the defendants other than Mr Bloomfield
- 2 Whether the claimant's claims in contract and economic torts against the various defendants had a real prospect of success
- 3 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his Particulars of Claim
Ratio Decidendi
The claimant's claims against the defendants other than Mr Bloomfield were properly struck out as they disclosed no real prospect of success, lacked proper pleading of agency, conspiracy, or enforceable contract, and the economic tort claims were wholly unparticularised and fanciful. The Master did not err in refusing an adjournment or in his case management decisions. The appeal and application to set aside were dismissed.
Court Disposition
application and appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application to set aside the Master's order is dismissed.
- Appeal against refusal to adjourn is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment