Permission Given To Challenge A Judgment Allegedly Procured Through Pervasive Fraud And Dishonesty (Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima And Ors)

• Published date: 11 November 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Criminal Law, Arbitration & Dispute Resolution, White Collar Crime, Anti-Corruption & Fraud
• Law Firm: Gatehouse Chambers
• Author: Mr Phillip Patterson

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has given permission to bring a counterclaim challenging an earlier judgment following trial procured through pervasive fraud and dishonesty. Protracted litigation involving cross allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, hacking and dishonesty has now been expanded.

Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima and ors [2022] EWHC 2727 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

This decision expands the scope of what is already a protracted piece of litigation involving the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Ras Al Khaimah. Permission has now been giving to the Defendant, Mr Azima, to bring a new counterclaim, alleging that an earlier judgment following trial should be set aside on the basis that the witnesses for the Sovereign Wealth Fund committed a pervasive fraud on the Court itself. This is already a set of proceedings in which allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and hacking were at issue. The Judgment also offers guidance on two relatively unusual issues. First, the relevant test for setting aside a judgment on the grounds of fraud. The decision in Takhar v Gracefield Developments Limited [2020] A.C. 450 was applied. Second, it analyses the scope of the jurisdiction held by the High Court when a matter is remitted for decision by the Court of Appeal. This decision suggests that the High Court will be slow to conclude in such circumstances that the Order of the Court of Appeal has substantially restricted its jurisdiction to determine a claim or issue in respect of which it would otherwise have jurisdiction.

What was the background?

The Claimant, ("RAKIA") is the Sovereign wealth fund of Ral Al Khaimah, a composite part of the United Arab Emirates. RAKIA issued proceedings against Mr Azima, a US-based businessman involved in the aviation industry, for fraudulent misrepresentation in relation to a settlement agreement compromising various claims pursuant to which RAKIA paid $2.6 million to Mr Azima. Mr Azima denied the claims and alleged by way of defence and counterclaim that his email accounts and data had been unlawfully hacked by RAKIA prior to the settlement meeting and that data had been used against him. Mr Azima argued that the claim should be struck out for abuse of process or the evidence itself should be excluded. RAKIA denied that it was responsible for the hacking and claimed that it only discovered the hacked material when it was published on the internet. At a trial before Andrew...