An airline tycoon has won the right to argue that a 'contrived and dishonest case' was made in court following tuition at a 'perjury school' run by a former international firm partner. The ruling, in a counterclaim in Ras al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima, is the latest twist in a series of claims following a 2020 ruling that Farhad Azima had defrauded the Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA).  

Azima argued RAKIA relied on hacked data and documents at trial and lied to the court to conceal the hacking. But in the High Court Mr Justice Andrew Lenon ruled that Azima had acted dishonestly, dismissing his hacking defence.

The Court of Appeal previously rejected an appeal by Azima, but remitted a counterclaim by him for damages to the High Court with 'Additional Defendants' - Neil Gerrard, Dechert and James Buchanan - joined to it. Gerrard is a retired solicitor and former head of white collar crime at international firm Dechert, which represented RAKIA in the original proceedings. 

During the counterclaim, Mr Justice Michael Green heard that Azima had discovered a 'raft of new evidence, focused on 'project update reports'. These reports - all but one of which were previously said to have been destroyed - were compiled by Stuart Page, a private investigator who, the latest judgment states, has admitted his involvement in hacking on behalf of RAKIA and that he gave false evidence at the first trial. 

Earlier proceedings heard that Gerrard had put Page through ‘perjury school’ to rehearse a false account of how they obtained Azima’s emails. Azima has now settled with Page, who provided an affidavit supporting Azima’s case.

In June 2022, Azima obtained 'a great many more update reports and associated materials which had been saved by Page’s assistant', some of which contained confidential financial and banking information about Azima and his wife and emails that could only have been obtained illegally, the court heard.

In November last year, Green allowed an application by Azima to bring a counterclaim to have the judgment of the deputy judge set aside on the grounds that it was procured by fraud. The additional defendants appealed. 

In the Court of Appeal, Roger Masefield KC, for Dechert LLP, submitted: 'These are not in fact new arguments but ones Azima had tried to run unsuccessfully before the deputy judge and the Court of Appeal.'

Thomas Plewman KC, for Azima, argued the evidence now given by Page was 'compelling evidence' that a 'contrived and dishonest case was presented to the court on the initiative of RAKIA, Buchanan and Gerrard and under the tuition of Gerrard at the perjury school'.

The Court of Appeal concluded that Azima 'clearly does' satisfy the threshold of showing he had a real prospect of success on his counterclaim.

In lead judgment, Sir Julian Flaux said he had 'little or no doubt' that if the 1,000 pages of project update reports previously said to have been destroyed had been before the Court of Appeal, it would 'obviously have remitted both the hacking counterclaim and RAKIA’s claims for retrial'.

The appeal by the additional defendants was dismissed.  

On 22 June, RAKIA wrote to the court saying it had withdrawn instructions from its solicitors and it did not intend to take any further part in the proceedings. The Court of Appeal revealed that, earlier that month RAKIA made an open offer to Azima to settle the hacking counterclaim for $1million plus the costs of that counterclaim, which was rejected.