BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) >> Mohammed Reza Ghadami v (1) Lynn Properties Limited (2) Vitala Investment Holdings Limited (3) Merix International Ventures Limited (Practice and Procedure : Practice and Procedure) [2019] UKFTT 112 (PC) (16 January 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/PC/2019/112.html Cite as: [2019] UKFTT 112 (PC) |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
| Case reference | REF/2018/0150/0151/0152 |
|---|---|
| Date of decision | 16/01/2019 |
| Adjudicator | Mr Martin Dray |
| Applicant | Mohammed Reza Ghadami |
| Respondent | (1) Lynn Properties Limited (2) Vitala Investment Holdings Limited (3) Merix International Ventures Limited |
| Main Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Practice and Procedure |
| Sub Category | Power to order rejection of future applications |
| Secondary Category & Sub Category | |
| Category | Practice and Procedure |
| Sub Category | Abuse of process |
| Decision notes | [2019] UKFTT 112 (PC). Application to enter unilateral notices in respect of an asserted proprietary estoppel claim, the eighth such application (the first having been in 2007). In 2013 the Applicant brought High Court proceedings against, amongst others, the Respondents. Those proceedings were struck out in 2014. The strike-out was upheld on appeal in 2016/17. Those proceedings concerned the subject properties and covered the tortuous background of the case but the Applicant had not actually advanced an estoppel claim therein. At the conclusion of the proceedings an extended civil restraint order had been made by the High Court. Held that Applicant’s statement of case/referred applications be struck out as an abuse of process under Rule 9(3)(d) on the basis that: (a) the holdings of Norris J in the court proceedings gave rise to an issue estoppel in material respects; (b) further, there was a Henderson v Henderson abuse because the estoppel claim could and should have been raised previously. Claim also struck out nder Rule 9(3)(e) as having no reasonable prospect of success because, despite the estoppel plea having first been asserted over a decade ago, no detrimental reliance has been pleaded (or ever identified). Further, given the Applicant’s propensity to make repeated, vexatious applications, Order made under Rule 40(3) directing HMLR to reject all future UN1 applications by the Applicant in relation to the properties |
| Download decision(s) | [2019] UKFTT 112 (PC) |
