Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima

A court may change its mind before a judgment is perfected by order, but the power must be exercised judicially and consistently with the overriding objective. Reopening is not justified merely because later evidence exposes inaccuracies in a witness’s evidence. The court must ask whether the new material could affect the substantive conclusions and whether further proceedings would deal with the case justly, at proportionate cost and consistently with the public interest in finality. A solicitor giving evidence owes a duty to be completely honest and scrupulously accurate. Where the original decision rests on a wide body of evidence and the proposed corrections would not alter the result, the court may admit the corrective evidence, decline further cross-examination and make the final order on the judgment as delivered.

Following a trial between the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority and Farhad Azima, the court handed down judgment on 22 May 2020. Before the consequential order was perfected, a witness for the claimant sought to correct substantial parts of his trial evidence concerning interviews with a detained person and related safeguards. The defendant sought to reopen the judgment, recall the witness for cross-examination and revisit the finding that the claimant had not been shown responsible for hacking his emails. The issue was whether the corrective evidence justified reopening the judgment before perfection.

1. The court recognised the jurisdiction to change its mind up to the point when the order is drawn up and perfected, as recognised in In Re L & B [2013] UKSC 8. The jurisdiction had to be exercised judicially and in accordance with the overriding objective.

2. The corrections were significant in relation to the witness’s dealings with the detained person. They created a materially different impression and concerned a pleaded issue about alleged human-rights abuses. The witness had not given an entirely satisfactory explanation for the inaccuracies or the delay. A solicitor giving evidence must be completely honest and scrupulously accurate, with particular care required because of the trust placed in solicitors as officers of the court. The court referred generally to Wingate v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366 and Brett v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2014] EWHC 2974.

3. The court did not decide whether the witness had deliberately lied. Human memory is fallible and honest witnesses may make mistakes when recalling past events, as recognised in Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm).

4. The new evidence was consistent with, and supportive of, the finding that the claimant had failed to establish that the human-rights stories were false. It did not affect the other substantive issues. Even if further cross-examination established deliberate dishonesty, the hacking conclusion rested on evidence from different sources, contemporaneous documents and the absence of cogent evidence establishing the claim. The witness’s evidence was not its exclusive or primary basis.

5. Further cross-examination and reconsideration would not advance the overriding objective, would cause disproportionate delay and expense, and would conflict with the public interest in finality. The court admitted the corrective witness statement and made a final order based on the judgment as it stood.

Not an appeal. The judgment was an addendum to the court’s earlier trial judgment, delivered on 22 May 2020, and determined an application to reopen that judgment before the final order was perfected.