Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Mohamed Hassan El Haddad v Khulood Abdulla Hassan Al Rostamani & Ors

1 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 448 (Ch)
High Court
Dr. Haddad lost a case and accused his opponents' lawyers of cheating. The judge said the lawyers were protected from such accusations and that Dr. Haddad's claims were weak and repetitive, so the accusations against the lawyers were dismissed.

Key Facts

  • Dr. Haddad sought to set aside a 2021 judgment against him, alleging fraud by all 18 defendants.
  • The 2021 judgment dismissed Dr. Haddad's Partnership Claim due to issue estoppel based on UAE court decisions and lack of disclosure.
  • The current claim focuses on allegations of fraud against 10 lawyer defendants (9th-18th defendants).
  • Dr. Haddad alleges numerous instances of dishonesty and misleading the court by the lawyer defendants.
  • The lawyer defendants applied to strike out the claim, citing immunity, lack of liability, inadequate pleading, hopeless allegations, and a concealed appeal.
  • Dr. Haddad's claim form and particulars of claim were excessively lengthy (204 pages, 877 paragraphs).

Legal Principles

A court will strike out a statement of case if it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim, or if it is an abuse of the court’s process.

CPR rule 3.4(2)

Summary judgment will be granted if a party has no realistic prospect of success on their claim or defence.

CPR rule 24.2

Witness immunity from suit extends to statements made in preparing a proof for trial and in any judicial proceedings.

Marrinan v Vibart [1963] QB 234

Immunity applies to a claim that defendants conspired to give false evidence to a court.

Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2001] 1 AC 435

To set aside a judgment for fraud, a claimant must prove 'conscious and deliberate dishonesty' in relation to material evidence that was an operative cause of the court's decision.

Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13

Allegations of fraud must be pleaded with full particulars, including facts supporting inferences of dishonesty; the inference of dishonesty must be more likely than innocence or negligence.

CPR 16.4(1), Chancery Guide para 4.8, Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No.3) [2003] 2 AC 1, JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman [2015] EWHC 3073 (Comm)

Outcomes

The applications to strike out Dr. Haddad's claim against the lawyer defendants were granted.

The lawyer defendants enjoyed immunity from suit related to their roles in the Partnership Claim; Dr. Haddad's allegations of fraud were incoherent, lacked reasonable grounds, and constituted an abuse of process; his pleadings were inadequate.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.