Mehdi v Bates (Aka Muhummad Rafiq)

On an application for permission to bring a second appeal, arguable issues about whether a religious agreement formed part of a commercial contract, and its legal effect, may justify permission. Such issues should not be dismissed as irrelevant merely because they involve religious considerations. Where the issues may require oral and expert evidence, summary disposal may be inappropriate. Relevant telephone records and expert evidence may be admitted as fresh evidence. Time for seeking permission may be extended for a litigant in person whose delay resulted from procedural misunderstanding, particularly where an intention to appeal was indicated promptly. Enforcement of a costs order may be stayed pending the appeal.

Mehdi v Bates (Aka Muhummad Rafiq) concerned Mr Mehdi’s claim for £3,850 for computer equipment and services supplied for a hospital project in Sudan. Mr Mehdi relied on a 20 December 1999 is-tisna'a agreement signed personally by both parties. Mr Bates contended that the contract was between their respective companies and that the religious agreement had no legal effect.

District Judge Tennant dismissed Mr Bates’s application for summary judgment and directed that oral and expert evidence be obtained. On appeal, Judge Ellis regarded the claimant’s case that the companies acted as agents of the individuals as fanciful. Mr Mehdi sought permission for a second appeal out of time and applied to rely on telephone records and expert evidence. The central issues were whether the is-tisna'a agreement was incorporated into the contract, what legal consequences it had, and whether more than one agreement existed.

Permission to appeal. The application was allowed. The Court of Appeal considered that the proposed appeal raised issues of some importance which were at least arguable. These included whether the is-tisna'a agreement was incorporated into the contract, its legal effect and consequences, and whether the parties had made more than one agreement.

The court held that those questions should not have been disregarded or treated as purely religious considerations irrelevant to the legal principles governing the contract. The issues might require examination of the telephone discussions and expert evidence concerning the nature and effect of the agreement in Islamic law. The district judge had already directed a single joint expert report, but that direction had not been complied with following the defendant’s failure to provide the necessary expert details.

The Court of Appeal ordered that Mr Mehdi’s records of telephone conversations and expert evidence should be admitted as fresh evidence at this stage. The full court would determine the substantive issues on the appeal.

The notice seeking permission had been lodged seven weeks late. Mr Mehdi had contacted the court a few days after Judge Ellis’s decision and had plainly indicated that he wished to appeal, but, as a litigant in person, had failed to appreciate that he was contacting the wrong court. Justice therefore required an extension of time.

There was also an issue concerning enforcement of the costs order. Enforcement was stayed pending the appeal.

Orders: application allowed; extension of time granted; stay of enforcement of the costs order granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 3 July 2001, permission to bring a second appeal was granted. Fresh evidence was admitted, time was extended, and enforcement of the costs order was stayed: [2001] EWCA Civ 1149.
2. Croydon County Court: On 26 March 2001, Judge Ellis heard an appeal from the decision of District Judge Tennant and rejected the contention that the companies acted as agents of the individuals.
3. District Judge Tennant: On 21 November 2000, the defendant’s application for summary judgment was dismissed and directions were made for oral and expert evidence concerning the is-tisna'a agreement.