|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Khosravi v British American Tobacco PLC & Ors  EWHC 123 (QB) (28 January 2016)
Cite as:  EWHC 123 (QB)
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a High Court Judge
| Mehdi Khosravi
|- and -
|(1) British American Tobacco P.L.C.
(2) Al Aqili Trading LLC
(3) Mohammed Saleh Al Aqili
(4) Mohammed Saeed Mohamed Al Aqili
(5) B.A.T. Pars Company (Private Joint Stock)
(6) B.A.T (UK and Export) Ltd
David Head (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) for the First and Sixth Defendants
Hearing dates: 8 and 11 December 2015
Crown Copyright ©
Sir David Eady :
Introducing the issues
A summary of the claim now pleaded
The principles to be applied
"Time and costs will, or may, be wasted if the defendant seeks to respond to a vague and incoherent case. It is also necessary for the Court to understand the case which is brought so that it may fairly and expeditiously decide the case and in a manner which saves unnecessary expense. For these reasons it is necessary that a party's pleaded case is a concise and clear statement of the facts on which he relies."
This is not always a matter to be judged solely by reference to the pleading, since evidence as to context may be important in understanding what is intended. Further, in some cases, evidence may be introduced which shows that an otherwise defective pleading could be reprieved if new facts are incorporated by amendment. I need to consider whether this applies in the present dispute.
BAT's evidence as to the commercial background
Is the present case sufficiently clear?
The nature of the claim originally put forward
The Claimant's evidence
My conclusions as to strike-out and summary judgment
Should there now be an adjournment?
The arguments on setting aside the extensions of time
The final outcome