Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in refusing an adjournment and striking out the claims against the defendants other than Mr Bloomfield
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's claims in contract and economic torts against the various defendants had a real prospect of success
  3. 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.