Rahman v Rahman & Ors

Rahman v Rahman & Ors

Aziz failed to demonstrate genuine financial need or provide sufficient evidence and assurance that Habib's enforcement rights would be protected. The application was late, lacked credible justification, and Aziz's history of untruthful statements undermined his assertions. The variation application was dismissed as the grounds advanced were not made out.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Mr Habibur Rahman; Applicant/defendant: Mr Azizur Rahman; Applicant/defendant: Icon College of Technology and Management Ltd; Applicant/defendant: Icon Technology (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application—variation of Injunction Order
Outcome
variation application dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation of Injunction, Interim Payments, Freezing Orders, Delay/laches, Assessment of Damages
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Variation of Injunction Interim Payments Freezing Orders Delay/laches Assessment of Damages

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Habibur Rahman

Respondent/claimant

Mr Azizur Rahman

Applicant/defendant

Icon College of Technology and Management Ltd

Applicant/defendant

Icon Technology (UK) Ltd

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application—variation of Injunction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Arnold order (injunction restraining payments by Icon College Ltd to Aziz and Dr Nabi except salary/expenses) should be varied to permit further distributions/dividends to Aziz
  2. 2 Whether Aziz demonstrated financial need justifying variation
  3. 3 Whether delay/laches or change of circumstances justified variation

Ratio Decidendi

Aziz failed to demonstrate genuine financial need or provide sufficient evidence and assurance that Habib's enforcement rights would be protected. The application was late, lacked credible justification, and Aziz's history of untruthful statements undermined his assertions. The variation application was dismissed as the grounds advanced were not made out.

Court Disposition

variation application dismissed

Orders

  • Variation application to discharge or alter the Arnold order is refused.
  • Existing restraint injunctions remain in force.