Rasal Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 507
Mohamed Razeem v Vibhutiben Desai
2 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 689 (Ch)
High Court
Mr. Razeem tried to overturn previous court decisions against him, claiming they were based on lies. The judge looked at his case carefully and decided he hadn't proved any lies and that his case was weak, so threw it out. Because the case was thrown out, the judge didn't need to decide about extra costs.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Razeem brought a claim to set aside four judgments obtained against him by Mrs. Desai, alleging fraud.
- •The judgments stemmed from disputes over the sale and resale of a newsagent's shop.
- •Mr. Razeem had a history of bringing unsuccessful claims against Mrs. Desai, leading to civil restraint orders.
- •Mrs. Desai applied to strike out Mr. Razeem's claim and for security for costs.
- •Mr. Razeem's bankruptcy was also a factor in the case.
Legal Principles
CPR rule 3.4(2) allows the court to strike out a statement of case if it shows no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, is an abuse of the court's process, or there is a failure to comply with an order.
CPR rule 3.4(2)
For a strike-out application under CPR 3.4(2)(a), the court focuses on the particulars of claim without considering the defendant's case; the claim stands or falls on the pleaded case.
CPR rule 3.4(2)(a)
The cause of action to set aside a judgment for fraud is independent of the cause of action in the earlier proceedings and is not subject to cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, or res judicata.
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2019] UKSC 13
To set aside a judgment based on fraud, there must be 'conscious and deliberate dishonesty' in relation to material evidence, and that dishonesty must be causative of the impugned judgment.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Highland Financial Partners LP [2013] EWCA Civ 328
An action to set aside a judgment for fraud is akin to an action for deceit, requiring misrepresentation or misleading conduct, undertaken fraudulently, with reliance (for deceit) and materiality (for setting aside a judgment).
Tinkler v Esken Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 655
In deciding materiality, the second court should not retry the question of liability but should consider whether the fresh evidence would have entirely changed the first court's approach to its decision.
Grant and Mumford on Civil Fraud (First Edition, 2018)
CPR rule 25.13(1)(a) requires the court to be satisfied that it is just to make an order for security for costs.
CPR rule 25.13(1)(a)
Where a claimant asserts that an order for security for costs will stifle a claim, the burden lies on the claimant to provide evidence to support that assertion.
Goldtrail Travel Ltd v Aydin [2017] UKSC 57
Outcomes
Mr. Razeem's claim was struck out.
The claim was hopeless and bound to fail. The alleged fraud (failure to disclose the husband's conviction) lacked substance given Mr. Razeem's prior knowledge, and the other allegations were not material to the original judgments.
The application for security for costs was not considered.
The claim was struck out, making the application for security for costs unnecessary.
Similar Cases
Mohamed Hassan El Haddad v Khulood Abdulla Hassan Al Rostamani & Ors
[2024] EWHC 448 (Ch)
William Andrew Tinkler v Esken Limited (formerly Stobart Group Limited)
[2023] EWCA Civ 655
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited & Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2420 (Ch)
Jonathan Harris Sinclair v Rodney Whiston-Dew & Anor
[2023] EWHC 657 (KB)