Karim v Charkham & Ors

Judgment

Mr Justice Griffith Williams :

Introduction

On 18 December 2013, Shamim Akhtar Karim (“the Claimant”) issued and served a Claim Form, HQ13X60629 (“the third claim”) against Samuel Maurice Charkham, Waterside Finance Limited, Benjamin Tobin, Simon Eric Daniel Tilsiter, Terry Newman and Mogul International Management Consultants Limited (“the first - sixth defendants”). The first defendant is a solicitor in the firm Michael Simkins LLP who act for the second defendant. The Brief details of claim are as follows:

“The Claimant’s (sic) arises out of the fraudulent acts/omissions of the defendants whereby each and every one of them knew or were reckless as to the substantive acts of dishonesty and/or fraud and misappropriation of funds and the claimant seeks:

Declarations that each and every transaction since 24 October 2012 arose out of dishonesty and/or fraud committed or condoned by all of the defendants.

The Aunction (sic) Contract having been rescinded the assignment and the TR.2 are void.

The first and third defendants provide an account of the monies received by them and an enuiry (sic) as to what has become of the said amounts and order for restitution.

Damages of Costs.

Interest.”

By an Application Notice dated 20 January 2014, the first and fifth defendants and each of them applied to strike out the Claim under CPR 3.4 (2) as an abuse of the process of the court and/or as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the Claim. The sixth defendant issued its own application for similar relief and on a similar basis on 6 February 2014. Consequent upon the determination of that application, there is a claim for an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the claimant. In the alternative, the defendants seek an order staying the Claim until such time as the claimant has discharged outstanding costs orders totalling some £75,000 made against her in proceedings HC12AO3391 and HQ13X02379 (see below).

At the conclusion of submissions at the hearing on 12 February 2014, the Court stated that the application to strike out the claims was allowed, that there would be an order striking out the action and that there would be an extended civil restraint order for reasons to be given later. The reasons are set out in this Judgment.

Background

In 2011, the claimant, a former solicitor, and her husband Ashraf Remtulla Karim were in considerable debt to numerous creditors who included Furness Mortgages and the Solicitors Indemnity Fund. Many debts we