Ahmed v Habib Bank Ltd

Permission to appeal should be granted where the proposed ground has a realistic, rather than fanciful, chance of success. That threshold was met by issues concerning whether a registered foreign order fell within the reciprocal-enforcement scheme and whether the judgment had been obtained by fraud. A public-policy ground based on the loss of an opportunity to appeal abroad was not arguable and did not justify permission. A stay of execution could be granted on terms requiring the appeal to proceed expeditiously and the appeal bundle to be properly prepared.

The claimant sought permission to appeal from an order of Carnwath J dated 12 October 2000. The judge had dismissed his application to set aside registration of a Karachi judgment in favour of Habib Bank Ltd ordering payment of approximately £5.6 million, together with markup from 7 September 1995 and costs.

The proposed appeal concerned whether the registered order was a judgment of a High Court for the purposes of the reciprocal-enforcement legislation, whether it had been obtained by fraud, and whether enforcement would offend public policy because the claimant had been deprived of an opportunity to appeal in Pakistan.

1. Permission to appeal. Latham LJ, giving the judgment of the court, applied the threshold that permission is justified where a ground has a realistic, as opposed to fanciful, chance of success.
2. The first ground was arguable. The material placed before the court suggested that the Pakistani order might be regarded in Pakistan as an order of the High Court exercising banking-court jurisdiction, rather than a judgment of the High Court for the purposes of the Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 and the relevant Order concerning Pakistan judgments. Permission was therefore granted on that ground.
3. The fraud ground was also sufficiently arguable. Although the judge had made factual findings against the claimant, the material before the Court of Appeal indicated that a court could reach a contrary conclusion. Permission was granted on that ground.
4. Permission was refused on the public-policy ground. The claimant relied on the circumstances in Pakistan and the alleged loss of an opportunity to appeal. The court considered that ground not arguable, and counsel accepted that it did not fall within the same category as the other two grounds.
5. A stay of execution was granted on the usual condition that the appeal be pursued with due expedition. A further condition required the appellant's bundle to be put in proper order and lodged within 28 days. There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission granted on the jurisdiction and fraud grounds, refused on the public-policy ground, and stay of execution granted on stated terms.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Carnwath J dismissed the application to set aside registration of the Pakistani judgment on 12 October 2000.