Mohammed Munim & Anor v Hazifur Rahman & Ors
[2022] EWHC 2870 (Ch)
Hafizur Rahman v Mohammed Abdul Munim & Anor
14 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 123
Court of Appeal
A businessman claimed his business partner transferred his shares without permission. A judge found the partner did transfer them, based on signed documents and other evidence. An appeal court agreed, even though some questions weren't fully explored during the original trial, as they didn't significantly impact the judge's decision.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Hafizur Rahman appealed a High Court decision dismissing his unfair prejudice petition against Mr. Mohammed Abdul Munim and Le Chef plc.
- •The petition concerned share transfers in Le Chef plc, where Rahman initially held 25% and Munim 65%.
- •Munim claimed Rahman transferred 20 shares to him, supported by signed stock transfer forms and resolutions.
- •Rahman denied signing the documents; a handwriting expert found limited evidence supporting Rahman's signatures.
- •The appeal focused on the validity of signatures, lack of cross-examination, and the judge's assessment of witness credibility.
- •The case involved three consolidated claims: unfair prejudice, defamation (Munim v Rahman), and copyright (Rahman v Munim & ARTA Awards Ltd).
Legal Principles
Appeals against findings of fact should only interfere if the trial judge was plainly wrong (i.e., no reasonable judge could have reached that conclusion).
Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Inadequate reasons explaining a judge's decision can be grounds for appeal. The judge must identify critical matters and deal with contrary evidence.
Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413
Contemporaneous documents are significant; judges must explain why such documents are not taken at face value if they contradict the conclusion.
Simetra Global Assets Ltd v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413
A party must generally challenge a witness's evidence through cross-examination to contest its acceptance. Exceptions exist, depending on the overall fairness of the trial.
Griffiths v TUI (UK) Ltd [2023] UKSC 48
A trial judge should not find for a party based on a point not in their pleaded case, unless it is just and causes no prejudice to the opposing party.
Ali v Dinc [2022] EWCA Civ 34
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that Rahman signed the share transfer forms and resolutions. The judge's findings were not plainly wrong, and adequate reasons were given. While some procedural issues were identified, they did not cause sufficient prejudice to warrant overturning the decision.