Ghadami v Bloomfield & Ors

A court considering an application to reopen summary orders made in a party’s absence should consider factors comparable to those under CPR 39.3, including the reason for non-attendance, the merits and promptness, but as discretionary factors rather than mandatory conditions. An adjournment is not automatically required whenever a litigant in person produces medical evidence.

At the summary disposal stage, the court assesses whether the pleaded case has a real prospect of success. An agency conclusion must be supported by pleaded primary facts. Corporate connections, common participation in transactions and alleged knowledge do not by themselves establish agency, conspiracy, inducement or intentional economic interference. A transaction is not a sham merely because companies share ownership or connections; the necessary intention must be shown.

The claimant sought damages and specific performance arising from alleged promises concerning London properties, together with claims in conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and causing loss by unlawful means against numerous defendants.

A Deputy Master struck out the claims against most defendants, granted limited permission to amend a claim concerning an alleged commission, and set aside default judgments against two defendants. The claimant appealed, challenging the refusal to adjourn the summary disposal hearing, and applied to set aside the Master’s order on the basis of his non-attendance.

The central issues were whether the absence justified reopening the order, whether the pleaded contractual and agency claims had a real prospect of success, and whether the alleged property transactions supported the economic tort claims.

1. The application to set aside the Master’s order was dismissed. The claimant had a good reason for non-attendance and had applied promptly. Those matters were relevant, but they were factors in the court’s discretion rather than mandatory requirements. The court considered the approach in Bank of Scotland v Pereira [2011] EWCA Civ 241 and followed its guidance that an application to set aside should be considered before a procedural appeal based on non-attendance.

2. The contractual claim against the principal defendant could proceed only on the identified promissory notes and the 2009 oral agreement. There was no enforceable contract for transferring the properties, because the alleged oral agreement failed to comply with section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

3. The agency case had no real prospect of success. Agency is a legal conclusion drawn from primary facts. Allegations of business connections, participation in other ventures, statements by third parties and a possible nominee shareholding did not establish that the alleged agent had authority to bind the proposed principals. The transactional documents contained no indication that personal liability had been assumed.

4. The economic tort claims were also fanciful. There was no enforceable contract capable of being induced, and the pleading did not identify sufficient facts establishing the knowledge, intention, unlawful means or predominant purpose required for conspiracy or intentional economic interference. The court applied the principles discussed in OBG v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1.

5. The alleged property sales were not shown to be shams. A sham requires an intention by all parties to create the appearance of rights and obligations different from those they actually intend. Common ownership, shared names, conveyancing mistakes, inconsistent statements and commercial connections did not establish that intention. The transactions appeared to have commercial purposes and involved real consideration.

6. The appeal was dismissed. Even if there had been a procedural error in refusing an adjournment, it could not affect the result because the underlying claims lacked merit. The Master’s order was left undisturbed, subject to the claimant’s limited opportunity to amend the surviving commission claim.

• High Court (Chancery Division): the appeal from the Deputy Master’s refusal to adjourn was dismissed, and the application to set aside the Master’s order was dismissed.
• Deputy Master: struck out the claims against most defendants, set aside two default judgments, and permitted a limited amendment concerning an alleged commission.