Judge throws out 'extravagant' claim about litigant's lookalike

A judge has rejected a losing defendant’s attempt to smear his opponent’s solicitors as conspirators in a false identity scam.

In Gupta & Anor v Shah & Ors Sir Anthony Mann explained that he had opted not to send a draft judgment to the parties in the breach of trust and conspiracy claim after ruling that the application for summary judgment had largely succeeded.

But in an addendum, the judge said he had received a letter from the first defendant asking for the handing down date to be deferred. He based this on an allegation that the person who appeared in court as the claimant was in fact the claimant's brother.

This impersonation, it was further alleged, was arranged by the claimant’s solicitor who was said to be ‘heavily involved with criminal organisations and his audacity stems from the fact that he was being blackmailed’.

The defendant sought a deferred handing down pending a police investigation.

The judge inferred that the defendant, who had not even appeared in court and was believed to be in Cyprus, must have been told about the claimant’s presence by someone else watching proceedings. He described the allegations about external actors as ‘extravagant’ and informed the defendant that the judgment would not be deferred on the basis that insufficient grounds had been made out.

US-based ophthalmologist and retinal surgeon Dr Sunil Gupta claimed to have been defrauded by the first defendant Olgun Shah into parting with $14m (£11.6m) for a purported investment scheme. Nurel Shah, the first defendant’s wife, was also sued on the basis of dishonest or knowing assistance.

Olgun Shah had sought to have proceedings adjourned after claiming his solicitors had told him they were coming off the record only the day before last month’s hearing. The judge said his suggestion that he thought until then he would be represented was ‘implausible’ as he must have known there had been no preparations made for the hearing. The adjournment application was refused. The court eventually found summary judgment against Olgun Shah and made him liable to repay the $14m.

Solicitors were also relevant in the court’s order to Nurel Shah that she should be liable for around £4m. She had transferred that sum from her bank account to national firm Knights Solicitors before the monies in her account were subject to a freezing order. It was later explained by her that this was to buy a large family home, although no details of the intended purchase were provided to the court. The sum, which could be traced back to a trust account into which Dr Gupta paid, was transferred into court following a judge’s order in 2021. There was no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of Knights.