The five applications
The five applications
The five applications now before me are unfortunately not the only extant applications in this litigation. By my reckoning, there are nine altogether (or possibly ten, though I am told that one has now been resolved). Nevertheless, by the order of HHJ Gerald, sitting as a judge of the High Court, dated 16 May 2025, it is the following five applications only that are listed before me on this occasion:
An application by Iftikhar dated 9 December 2024, for extensions of time in which to acknowledge service and challenge the jurisdiction of the court in relation to the 2019 English Partnership Claim;
An application by Iftikhar dated 24 January 2025, making a challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court, but alternatively seeking to strike out, or obtain reverse summary judgment on, the 2019 English Partnership Claim;
An application by Vaqar dated 26 January 2025, for a stay of the application in (2) above, pending the decision in application (1) above;
An application by Vaqar dated 11 March 2025, for an order lifting an automatic stay of the 1987 English Partnership Action imposed by CPR PD51A, paragraph 19(1);
An application by Iftikhar dated 6 May 2025, for an order lifting any automatic stay of the 2019 English Partnership Claim that may have been imposed by CPR rule 15.11, so far as necessary to decide the applications (1) and (2) above.
It will be seen that applications (1) to (3) and (5) concern the 2019 English Partnership Claim. Application (4) alone concerns the 1987 English Partnership Action. Applications (1), (2) and (5) were made by Iftikhar. Applications (3) and (4) were made by Vaqar. These applications were originally listed to be heard by HHJ Gerald (sitting as a judge of the High Court) on 14-15 May 2025. However, on an application made by Vaqar, that judge recused himself, and the applications were relisted before me instead.
I had the benefit of detailed skeleton arguments from both sides in advance of the hearing. Vaqar also put in further documents and written submissions before the hearing began, during it, and indeed after it. The applications were argued orally before me by James Kinman of counsel for Iftikhar, and by Vaqar in person, over two and a half days. Iftikhar’s counsel addressed me on all the applications first, over the first morning and a part of the first afternoon. Vaqar addressed me, again on all the applications, for the greater part of the first afternoon and the whole of the second day. Iftikhar’s counsel addressed me in reply on the morning of the third day. I then reserved my judgment. This is that judgment.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The five applications
- The evidence
- History of the litigation
- The 2018 Possession Claim: trial and appeals
- The present applications
- The 2019 English Partnership Claim
- Challenging the jurisdiction of the English court
- Procedure
- Iftikhar’s application of 6 May 2025
- Was Iftikhar served with the 2019 English Partnership Claim?
- Should the court set aside the permission to serve out?
- Other arguments for service on Iftikhar
- Declaration
- Forum non conveniens
- Strike-out/reverse summary judgment
- The remaining applications
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 2485 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)