Ahmed & Anor v Ahmed

At an interim stage, where the evidence is inadequate and the parties’ competing entitlement to money or assets cannot properly be resolved without oral evidence, the court should preserve existing protective arrangements and decline to grant further substantive relief. Interim orders may nevertheless be made to hold the ring, including directions for delivery up, provision of access details, further evidence and undertakings. The court may adjourn an application where a fair determination requires further evidence. Parties and legal representatives are expected to comply with procedural guidance and assist the court by identifying and narrowing the issues.

The proceedings arose from a dispute between two brothers concerning the operation and ownership of a car-leasing business. The first claimant owned and controlled the second claimant company. They alleged that the defendant, a former worker, had misappropriated money and company assets. The defendant counterclaimed that the first claimant held half the company’s shares on constructive trust for him.

Earlier interim orders restrained the defendant from accessing the company’s premises, bank account and computers, and required the claimants to provide specified business and financial information. The claimants sought committal and further interim relief. The defendant sought enforcement of the claimants’ undertakings or discharge of the injunction. The central issues were what interim directions could fairly be made pending trial and whether the available evidence justified further substantive relief.

1. Defendant’s application. The application seeking compliance with the claimants’ undertakings, failing which discharge of the injunction, was adjourned. Further evidence and a timetable were required, and the request for time to respond was reasonable.
2. Monetary claims. The claimants’ applications concerning sums allegedly taken or retained by the defendant were dismissed. The defendant appeared to admit possession of some or all of the sums but asserted entitlement to them. Without oral evidence, the court could not resolve that dispute. The existing protection afforded by the earlier injunction remained sufficient.
3. Interim preservation of the position. The court’s task was to hold the ring between the parties pending trial, rather than determine the underlying ownership dispute. Orders were therefore made requiring the defendant to return CCTV equipment if held, or provide evidence explaining its whereabouts; state what had happened to the PayPal account and provide the last relevant access details; provide the current email-domain log-in and master password; and provide information concerning the Money Claim Online account.
4. The parties were restrained from changing the email-domain log-in and master password without further order. The defendant also undertook to hand over weekly business records, while being permitted to retain a copy, and was directed to address the alleged invoice book in a further witness statement.
5. The court criticised both sides’ preparation and non-compliance with the procedural expectations applicable to interim hearings. Costs of the hearing were disallowed, with no order as to the specified application costs. Any further interim applications and the judgment were to be drawn to the attention of the relevant judge and the Master at any case management conference.

The judgment records a series of earlier interim orders and hearings in the same proceedings:

• 17 November 2020: Roth J granted protective orders concerning the defendant’s access to the company and its systems.
• 8 December 2020: Mann J varied the costs order, continued the protective order and recorded undertakings by the claimants.
• 4 February 2021: Adam Johnson J dismissed the committal application for non-compliance with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Part 81, and adjourned the remaining interim issues.
• 16 February 2021: Adam Johnson J dismissed the defendant’s application to discharge the injunction and further adjourned the claimants’ application.
• 23 April 2021: the present court dismissed the monetary interim relief, made further preservation directions and adjourned the defendant’s application.