Islamic Investment Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd v Symphony Gems NV & Ors
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE HAMBLEN
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves the application to set aside court orders due to fraudulent actions by Mr. Andrew Benson, who represented Rajesh Mehta. Mr. Benson fabricated various aspects of litigation between 2010 and 2013. RM sought to set aside adverse orders, particularly focusing on the committal orders. The court, applying precedents and civil procedure rules, found Benson's fraud provided grounds to set aside the Activation Committal Order but not the other orders. Legal principles include jurisdiction under CPR r3.1(7), material change of circumstances, and addressing fraudulent acts by legal representatives.
Judgment
Mr Justice Hamblen:
Introduction
The facts giving rise to the present application are so extraordinary that they could have come from one of A.P.Herbert’s “Misleading Cases”.
As with A.P. Herbert’s “Uncommon Law”, this case involves the false document literary technique – the creation of a sense of authenticity through the invention of documents which appear to be factual.
The “author” in this case was Mr Andrew Benson, then a partner in Byrne & Partners LLP who was purporting to act for the Second Defendant, Rajesh Mehta (“RM”).
From the end of October 2010 until December 2013 he conducted fictitious litigation for RM. That litigation involved fictitious hearings before the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal; purported judgments of those courts; purported sealed court orders; a purported hearing transcript; purported skeleton arguments; purported correspondence with court officials and the Claimant’s solicitors, Norton Rose; the fictitious instruction and engagement of various counsel, and telephone conferences involving the impersonation of his senior partner and of leading counsel. None of this reflected reality. Throughout that period there was in fact no contact with Norton Rose or the court.
The deception was finally discovered in December 2013 when questions were asked about a transcript of a purported hearing before Popplewell J. and his real clerk was contacted directly.
Mr Benson has been dismissed from Byrne & Partners and is under investigation by the Metropolitan Police and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (“SRA”).
The present application seeks the setting aside of orders made by the court at the time Mr Benson was purportedly acting for RM in real litigation. That litigation culminated in an order of David Steel J. dated 4 October 2010 (“the ACO”) by which he activated a suspended committal order made by him on 1 October 2009 (“the SCO”) and had a bench warrant issued for RM’s arrest. RM seeks the setting aside of all adverse orders made against him during the time of his representation by Mr Benson from the first instruction of Byrne & Partners on 28 June 2007 until the ACO in October 2010, but his main focus is on the SCO and the ACO. He contends that it is apparent that Mr Benson was acting fraudulently and against his interests from at least the end of October 2010 until December 2013; that there is clear evidence of Mr Benson misconducting the litigation in the lead up to the SCO and the ACO; that that miscondu