A judge has dismissed an aviation tycoon’s application for default judgment in one of two counterclaims against the state investment entity of one of the United Arab Emirates, concluding that ‘unfairness’ to international firm Dechert would ‘clearly outweigh’ any unfairness the claimant may suffer.
Farhad Azima succeeded in his other counterclaim against Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority (RAKIA) after the judge found the body had ‘clearly signalled its intention to disregard all court-imposed duties’.
In Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Farhad Azima & Ors, Mr Justice Michael Green said Azima had sought default judgment against RAKIA as the authority had not participated in proceedings since June 2022. Dechert and its former head of white-collar crime, Neil Gerrard, opposed the default judgment being granted in a counterclaim against RAKIA.
Azima, a US citizen, claims that he was targeted by hackers working for investigators directed by Dechert on behalf of RAKIA to fabricate a case against him. Dechert denies any wrongdoing. In June 2022, RAKIA wrote to the court stating it would take no further part in proceedings and that it was ‘content for judgment to be entered against it, for damages to be assessed’.
Dismissing the application for default judgment against RAKIA on the counterclaim, the judge said: ‘The unfairness to Dechert and Mr Gerrard in relation to their defences… if default judgment is granted clearly outweighs any unfairness (if any) that Mr Azima might suffer from not being granted default judgment. I think the court should be cautious about setting aside judgments at both first instance and in the Court of Appeal without consideration of the merits, particularly where defences have been pleaded to those claims.
‘I do not think Mr Azima is prejudiced by the fact that RAKIA is not participating in the proceedings. Nor do I consider that there is any real risk that Mr Azima will not get a fair trial.’
The judge said there was ‘no doubt’ RAKIA was in breach of its duty to provide extended disclosure. ‘I am therefore persuaded that the breaches of court orders are serious enough to justify the striking out of RAKIA’s defence to the hacking counterclaim. It is obvious now that RAKIA will not comply with any such extension of time and it is therefore pointless to delay any further the striking out of the defence.’
Granting Azima judgment in default, the judge said: ‘Mr Azima is entitled to judgment in default of defence and this is not opposed by anyone. Indeed it appears to be what RAKIA wanted over a year ago.’
A costs order was also made for interim payment, on an indemnity basis, at 75% of Azima’s total estimate costs on the hacking counterclaim.
A spokesperson for Azima said he was ‘pleased’ with the judgment.
