[2025] EWHC 2485 (Ch)

Fecha: 03-Oct-2025

The evidence

The evidence

The evidence on these applications was as follows. I have listed them under each of the five applications separately:

(1)

application by Iftikhar dated 9 December 2024 (extensions of time): supported by evidence of Adam Polonsky (his solicitor) in the application notice; opposed by witness statement of Vaqar dated 6 January 2025;

(2)

application by Iftikhar dated 24 January 2025 (challenge to jurisdiction): supported by witness statements from Adam Polonsky and from Iftikhar, both dated 23 January 2025; in opposition, Vaqar relies on his own witness statement of 6 January 2025 and that of his former solicitor Prakash Patel of 13 April 2022;

(3)

application by Vaqar dated 26 January 2025 (for stay on (2)): supported by witness statement from Vaqar dated 26 January 2025;

(4)

application by Vaqar dated 11 March 2025 (lifting automatic stay on 1987 action): supported by witness statement from Vaqar dated 11 March 2025; opposed by witness statement from Adam Polonsky dated 11 April 2025;

(5)

application by Iftikhar dated 6 May 2025 (lifting automatic stay on 2019 claim): supported by evidence of Adam Polonsky in the application notice.

10.

I make clear that none of the witnesses who made those statements or gave that written evidence was cross-examined at the hearing. Indeed, there was no suggestion (by either side) that there should be any cross-examination. Accordingly, although I am not obliged to accept all the evidence presented (because the witnesses may for example be mistaken), and I can weigh it up, for present purposes I am not at liberty to disbelieve the evidence contained in the affidavits, unless I consider that it was manifestly incredible in light of all the circumstances: see Long v Farrer & Co [2004] BPIR 1218, [57], which the Court of Appeal applied in Coyne v DRC Distribution Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 488, [58].

11.

However, and as I have already said, these applications are made in the context of long-running litigation between the parties, both here and in Pakistan. Over the years, there have been a number of English judgments in the litigation. Some of these are significant in deciding issues between the parties which thereafter cannot be relitigated. So there is no need for evidence on some points. For ease of reference I give brief details here of the earlier English judgments:

9 July 1987 Sir Neil Lawson (High Court)

5 August 1987 Fox, Parker LJJ (Court of Appeal)

21 February 2012 John Jarvis QC [2012] EWHC 711 (Ch)

13 February 2019 HHJ Gerald (County Court)

21 June 2019 Falk J [2019] EWHC 1843 (Ch)

18 December 2019 Zacaroli J [2019] EWHC 3530 (Ch)

17 May 2021 Meade J [2021] EWHC 1886 (Ch)

14 March 2022 HHJ Gerald (County Court)

29 March 2022 Lewison, Peter Jackson, Asplin LJJ [2022] EWCA Civ 411

20 January 2023 Bacon J [2023] EWHC 59 (Ch)

4 November 2024 King, Asplin, Zacaroli LJJ [2024] EWCA Civ 1323

14 March 2025 Leech J [2025] EWHC 778 (Ch)

16 May 2025 HHJ Gerald (High Court)