header-logo header-logo

01 November 2024
Issue: 8092 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 1 November 2024

Disclosure

Harrington & Charles Trading ­Company Ltd (In Liquidation) and others v Mehta and others [2024] EWHC 2674 (Ch)

The claimants obtained a worldwide freezing order against the family defendants in relation to an alleged fraud claim. The family defendants disclosed assets worth around $146m, including over $90m in receivables from an individual called Mr Ahli (the Ahli receivables). The first defendant, Jatin, entered into a third-party funding agreement to fund his Indian legal proceedings, with payments routed through an intermediary called Shouq Al Kathiri. The claimants were concerned about the lack of transparency around the Ahli receivables, the third-party funding agreement, and the use of Shouq Al Kathiri as an intermediary.

The court ordered limited disclosure in relation to the Indian legal proceedings, including: an affidavit from Jatin detailing how he funded the proceedings and any payments made, including through Shouq Al Kathiri; disclosure of the third-party funding agreement, subject to confidentiality restrictions; copies of Jatin’s client ledgers and office account ledgers from the Indian legal representatives; and information from Jatin

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll