Complex Legal Principles Applied in Shahraab Ahmad v Karim Ouajjou Case: Permission to Amend, Withdrawal of Admissions, & Summary Judgment Examined

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2666 (Comm)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Shahraab Ahmad v Karim Ouajjou & Anor [2023] EWHC 2666 (Comm), a set of complex legal principles were navigated to resolve multiple interlinked applications within a commercial dispute. Central to the case were issues surrounding permission to amend defences, withdrawal of admissions, and applications for summary judgment. The case provides insights into the application of these principles in the context of changing defences and the impact on the conduct of litigation.

Key Facts

The dispute involved claims by Shahraab Ahmad for repayment of sums allegedly loaned to Karim Ouajjou and Yasmin Al Sahoud Perez under several agreements. The agreements were said to be ‘back-to-back’ with loans from Guillaume Rambourg to Ahmad for investing in PPE projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendants initially acknowledged the loan agreements but later sought to amend their defence, fundamentally changing their factual case and leading to the issue of whether they could withdraw previous admissions.

Permission to Amend

In considering permission to amend (Elite Properties Ltd v Barclays Bank PLC [2019] EWCA Civ 204), the court applied the overriding objective, assessing whether the amendments had real prospects of success. Amendments need to show more than a fanciful chance, carrying some degree of conviction, and cogently supported by the factual pleadings.

Withdrawal of Admissions

Withdrawal of admissions was guided by CPR 14.1 and the considerations outlined in CPR 14PD.7, including the rationale for withdrawal, conduct leading to admission, resultant prejudice, stage of proceedings, prospects of success, and interests of justice (Bayerische Landesbank Anstalt des Offentlichen Rechts v Constantin Medien AG [2017] EWHC 131).

Summary Judgment

For the summary judgment application, the court applied the principles from ArcelorMittal North America Holdings LLC v Ravi Ruia et al [2022] EWHC 1378, evaluating the defendant’s defence for a realistic prospect of success and any compelling reasons that the case should be disposed of at trial.

Outcomes

The court granted permission for the defendants to amend their defence and to withdraw admissions, recognizing that the amended defence carried sufficient conviction and denying summary judgment. The court found that the case required a full trial to unravel the facts, given the complexities and uncertainties surrounding the transactions and documentation. The interests of justice, administration of justice, and the overriding objective were the court’s primary considerations.

Factors relevant to the withdrawal of admissions, including whether new evidence had come to light or if the party making the admission had been led to do so by another’s conduct, were considered. The court noted the early stage of proceedings and that denying the application for amendments and withdrawal of admissions would cause irremediable prejudice to the defendants.

Conclusion

Shahraab Ahmad v Karim Ouajjou & Anor serves as an illuminating case on the application of principles related to amendments, admissions, and summary judgments within commercial litigation. The case underscores the importance of a thorough exploration of factual matters within the trial and upholds the need for just resolution through the lens of both legal principles and fair administration of justice. UK legal professionals can draw from this case the courts’ willingness to permit amendments and withdrawal of admissions when ensuring the just determination of disputes and the implications for case management and conduct of litigation.