Khosravi v British American Tobacco PLC & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The first and sixth Defendants are members of Company A, with the fifth Defendant also part of the group but not participating in the current applications. The second to fourth Defendants are not involved in these applications. The Defendants seek to set aside various orders made by the Master that granted extensions of time for service of the claim form, relying on CPR 11(1), CPR 3.1(7), and CPR 23.10(1). Alternatively, they apply to strike out the claim form and particulars of claim under CPR 3.4(2), and in a further alternative, seek summary judgment dismissing the claims pursuant to CPR 24.2.

The claim was issued on 10 January 2014, initially joining the first to fourth Defendants. Permission to add the fifth and sixth Defendants was granted on 8 September 2015. The first Defendant should have been served by 10 May 2014, but seven extensions of time were granted, which the Defendants now seek to have set aside.

The Claimant alleges that the second, third, and fourth Defendants committed serious physical assaults against him in September 2008, and seeks to hold the Defendants liable either as principals or vicariously. The damages sought are substantial, amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds. The Defendants deny all liability and assert that they require clear and detailed particulars of the allegations.

Evidence from the Defendants indicates no agency relationship existed between them and the Al Aqili group after November 2006 for Iran and after March 2008 for Iraq. The first Defendant is a holding company without any contractual or commercial relationship with Al Aqili. The Defendants rely on contemporaneous documents demonstrating the termination of distributorship arrangements, including explicit "no agency or partnership" clauses in contracts.

The Claimant's case involves allegations that the Defendants conspired to use unlawful means to end an investigation into cigarette smuggling in Iran, which was controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp and involved Al Aqili. The Claimant alleges that the Defendants threatened to cease supplying products to Al Aqili unless the enquiry was stopped, and that a plan was devised in March 2008 to implicate the Claimant unlawfully to end the investigation.

The Claimant’s pleadings and evidence have been criticized for lack of clarity, particularity, and coherence, with inconsistencies noted between the pleaded case and contemporaneous documents. The Claimant’s evidence includes anonymous witness statements and assertions unsupported by documentary evidence, and there are significant discrepancies in key allegations, including the identity and roles of individuals involved in the alleged conspiracy.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the orders granting extensions of time for service of the claim form should be set aside under CPR 11(1), CPR 3.1(7), and CPR 23.10(1).
2. Whether the claim form and particulars of claim should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) for lack of sufficient particulars and clarity.
3. Whether summary judgment dismissing the claims in their entirety should be granted under CPR 24.2 on the basis that the claim has no realistic prospect of success.
4. Whether an adjournment should be granted to allow the Claimant to amend the pleadings.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

• The extensions of time for service were granted without adequate justification and should be set aside.
• The claim lacks sufficient particularity and clarity, especially given the seriousness of the allegations, and should be struck out.
• The contemporaneous documents and witness evidence demonstrate that the alleged agency and conspiracy do not exist, undermining the Claimant’s case.
• The Claimant’s evidence is speculative, incoherent, and unsupported by documentary proof.
• The claim has no realistic prospect of success and summary judgment should be granted.
• The Claimant’s case on loss and damage is uncertain and unsubstantiated.
• Any delay caused by the Claimant in serving the claim form is unjustified and detrimental to the Defendants’ interests.

Claimant's Arguments

• The Claimant appeared uncertain whether to defend the current pleaded claim or seek to amend it but did not present any draft amendment.
• The Claimant wishes to rely on the law of the United Arab Emirates regarding vicarious liability, reflecting the location of the primary events.
• The Claimant contends that the Defendants were motivated to end a smuggling investigation and were prepared to sanction violence through Al Aqili.
• The Claimant relies on official or quasi-official reports to rebut the argument that the claim is inherently implausible.
• The Claimant mooted the possibility of an adjournment to amend pleadings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first examined the particulars of claim and the evidence presented by both parties. It found the pleadings to be vague, incoherent, and lacking the necessary particularity to inform the Defendants of the case they must meet, especially given the gravity of the allegations involving serious assaults and conspiracy. The court noted inconsistencies between the Claimant’s pleadings, the letter before action, and the contemporaneous documents provided by the Defendants.

The court emphasized the importance of clarity and cogency in pleadings, particularly where serious allegations are involved, referencing established principles from case law. It rejected the reliance on inherent implausibility as a sole basis for dismissal but focused on the absence of factual particularity and cogent evidence.

Regarding summary judgment, the court assessed the evidence to determine whether the claim had a realistic prospect of success. It concluded that the evidence and pleadings failed to establish a plausible case, describing the claim as lacking "reality" and noting the "absence of reality" as per relevant authority.

On the applications to set aside the extensions of time for service, the court found the reasons provided by the Claimant insufficient and inconsistent with the overriding objective of CPR. The court acknowledged the Claimant’s health difficulties but balanced this against the Defendants’ right to fair and timely litigation.

The court declined to grant an adjournment for amendment due to the absence of any draft amendment and the lack of a clear explanation as to how the claim could be made effective.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED the applications to strike out the claim form and particulars of claim pursuant to CPR 3.4 and to enter summary judgment dismissing the claim under CPR 24.2.

The court also indicated that, had it not granted strike out and summary judgment, it would have set aside the extensions of time for service due to lack of good reason. No adjournment for amendment was permitted.

The direct effect of this decision is the dismissal of the Claimant’s claims against the Defendants. The court did not establish any new precedent but applied established principles concerning the necessity for clear pleadings and the appropriate use of summary judgment to dispose of unmeritorious claims.