High Court examines default judgment, summary judgment, and undue influence in complex asset misappropriation case

Introduction

In the case of Nebahat Evyap Işbilen v Selman Turk & Ors, the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, examined various legal principles in relation to default judgment, summary judgment, undue influence, and potential remedies available to a claimant. The Honourable Sir Anthony Mann presided over the intricate applications for partial judgments amidst a backdrop of alleged wrongdoing by a former Goldman Sachs banker, Mr. Selman Turk, against the claimant, Mrs. Işbilen, whose assets were purportedly misappropriated.

Key Facts

Mrs. Işbilen, fearing political persecution in Turkey, sought the aid of Mr. Turk to safeguard her considerable wealth amidst her relocation to England. Following her instructions, Mr. Turk facilitated the transfer of assets but also allegedly engaged in unauthorized disbursements for his own or associated entities’ benefit. The case encompassed default judgments against various corporate entities said to be recipients of Mrs. Işbilen’s assets, as well as an undue influence claim against Mr. Turk based on the presumption arising from their relationship of trust and confidence.

Legal Principles

Default Judgment

The court referred to CPR 12.2, indicating that default judgment is permissible when a defendant fails to acknowledge service or file a defense. Sir Anthony Mann applied the principle from the Otkritie International v Urumov case [2012] EWHC 890 (Comm), allowing default judgment against one of multiple defendants independently of ongoing proceedings against others.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment was assessed via CPR Pt 24, where the claimant sought declarations that certain transactions were procured by Mr. Turk’s undue influence. Key considerations were Mr. Turk’s presumed fiduciary duties and Mrs. Işbilen’s vulnerability and reliance on Mr. Turk. The claim relied upon a presumption of undue influence, reinforced by the non-responsive behavior of Mr. Turk to specific allegations and the alleged disadvantageous nature of corresponding transactions.

Relief Options

Relief was sought by Mrs. İşbilen in various forms such as reconveyance of assets, rescission of transactions, payments to be made back, interest, and equitable compensation. The court was not inclined to grant comprehensive relief through elections but focused on specific, more appropriate forms of relief commensurate with the claims’ establishment.

Outcomes

The court granted default judgments against certain corporate defendants, providing specific declaratory relief that aligned with claims upheld as justifiable based on plea particulars. Summary judgment against Mr. Turk was denied, given existing material conflicts regarding the undue influence claim. Additionally, a summary judgment application against AET Global Partners Ltd was dismissed owing to the need for trial consistency regarding claims against Mr. Turk himself.

Conclusion

In this meticulous legal analysis, Sir Anthony Mann pinpointed several crucial considerations in the pursuit of default and summary judgments. The court was cautious in granting fragmented relief, emphasizing the need for a holistic trial to resolve interlinked factual disputes. This case underscores the judiciary’s conscientious approach towards claim substantiation and the safeguarding of procedural fairness against the technical enforcement of legal remedies. The emphasis on comprehensive trial resolution illuminates the court’s preference for fully contextual judicial determinations over piecemeal adjudication.