Raja v Van Hoogstraten
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN,Mr Justice Lightman |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 998 (Ch),[2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CH-1993-R-NO: 6492,Case No: CH 1993 R 6492 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 12 June 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Mr Justice Lightman
Case No: CH-1993-R-NO: 6492
Mr Peter Irvin (instructed by Healys, 3 Waterhouse Square, 142, Holborn, London EC1N 2SW) for the Claimant
Mr Hugo Keith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4TS) as the Advocate to the Court
Mr van Hoogstraten appeared in person
Raja No 8
INTRODUCTION
This is an action brought by the late Mohammed Sabir Raja ("Mr Raja") in the Chancery Division of the High Court against the first defendant Mr Nicholas van Hoogstraten ("Mr van Hoogstraten") and three companies and continued after the death of Mr Raja by the claimant A.S. Raja ("the Claimant") representing the interests of the estate of Mr Raja. By this application the Claimant seeks an order that the Defence and Counterclaim of Mr van Hoogstraten (and with them an application by Mr van Hoogstraten to set aside an order obtained by Mr Raja) should be struck out and that he should be debarred from defending this action and prosecuting his counterclaim and that judgment should be entered for the Claimant.
The application arises out of a judgment I gave at the trial of the first stage in this action (and in certain other actions brought in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court in which Mr van Hoogstraten was a defendant). Mr Raja commenced this action on the 8 th October 1993. On the 2 nd July 1999 Mr Raja was murdered. A Mr Knapp, a Mr Croke and Mr van Hoogstraten were charged with the murder. Mr Knapp and Mr Croke were convicted and Mr van Hoogstraten (after initially being convicted of manslaughter and after that conviction had been set aside on appeal) was acquitted. Nonetheless the Claimant in this action (and the claimants in the other actions) raised the issue whether Mr van Hoogstraten was party to the murder and I ordered that that issue should be determined as the first stage in all the proceedings ("the Preliminary Issue"). After the trial of the Preliminary Issue, at which Mr van Hoogstraten decided not to be represented and which he did not attend, in my judgment ("the Preliminary Issue Judgment") I held that Mr van Hoogstraten was responsible for the murder. In paragraph 103 under the heading "Motive", I said:
"103. Mr van Hoogstraten says that he had no motive for wanting Mr Raja murdered, that the litigation was a source of amusement and that the sum at issue was to him and a man of his wealth "relative peanuts". But it is plain that the claims made by Mr Raja against him in the Chancery Action angered Mr van Hoogstraten and his anger was aggravated by the addition of the claim in fraud. The action threatened to open up to public scrutiny his business methods and his dealings with Mr Raja and Mr Raja's properties. He was not used to being thwarted. And the sum at stake was substantial running into millions of pounds and Mr van Hoogstraten viewed the saving and accumulation of money as the highest priority: he had a miser's attitude to "unnecessary" expenditure and an obsession with the recovery by any means of what he considered was due to him and belonged to him. The existence of the proceedings was sufficient to induce him to write the 1995 Letter, to make threats against Mr Raja and repeatedly to ask Mr Hamdan to find a hit-man from Lebanon. From Mr Hamdan's evidence it is clear that Mr van Hoogstraten's expectation was that, if he killed Mr Raja who was pursuing the Chancery Action relentlessly against him, Mr Raja's family would settle all outstanding claims on terms highly favourable to Mr van Hoogstraten."
I expressed my conclusion as follows:
"110. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, (and indeed if it were necessary beyond reasonable doubt), taking full account of the seriousness of the allegations against him, that Mr van Hoogstraten recruited two highly dangerous thugs, Mr Knapp and Mr Croke, to murder Mr Raja in order to halt the prosecution of the Chancery Action by Mr Raja against him and then to obtain the release or settlement of Mr Raja's claims against Mr van Hoogstraten on terms highly favourable to Mr van Hoogstraten. The evidence pointing to this conclusion is overwhelming. It would have been sufficient for this purpose even if Mr van Hoogstraten had good and sufficient reasons for not attending the trial. The conclusion is the stronger in the absence of any such reason. Only by presenting compelling evidence to the contrary could Mr van Hoogstraten have had any real prospect of persuading the court to decide otherwise. Perhaps wisely he did not even attempt to do so. His purpose in murdering Mr Raja has not been achieved because (contrary to his expectations) Mr Raja's family have been as resilient as was Mr Raja in his lifetime in standing up to Mr van Hoogstraten."
Mr van Hoogstraten applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, but permission was refused on the 9th May 2006.
On the 21 st December 2005 the Claimant issued this application. The grounds of the application are that: (1) Mr van Hoogstraten arranged the murder of Mr Raja in order: (a) to halt the prosecution of this action by Mr Raja against him; and (b) obtain the release or settlement of Mr Raja's claims on terms highly favourable to Mr van Hoogstraten; (2) the murder has jeopardised a fair trial of the action and counterclaim (most particularly) by preventing Mr Raja giving evidence; and (3) such an order is required to safeguard the interest of the administration of justice. Mr van Hoogstraten for his own reasons (and not for reasons of non-availability of resources) has decided to act in person on this application. In the circumstances in view of the importance of the legal issues raised and the lack of balance in representation I invited the Attorney General to appoint an advocate of the court. The Attorney General appointed Mr Hugo Keith. I am greatly indebted to Mr Keith for his invaluable assistance.
THE ACTION
Mr Raja commenced these proceedings on the 8 th October 1993. For reasons which it is unnecessary to record in this judgment the action has proceeded extraordinarily slowly. The defendants were (as they have been at all times) Mr van Hoogstraten, Stitchacre Limited ("Stitchacre"), Rarebargain Limited ("Rarebargain") and Castries Land Limited ("Castries"). It is the Claimant's case (challenged by Mr van Hoogstraten) that Rarebargain and Castries were companies owned and controlled by Mr van Hoogstraten, but no relief on this application is sought against Stitchacre, Rarebargain or Castries.
The issue at the heart of this action is the state of account at the date of commencement of these proceedings between Mr Raja and Mr van Hoogstraten and in particular the existence and terms of oral agreements which (the Claimant says) were made by Mr van Hoogstraten for the making of secured loans to Mr Raja and the repayments received by Mr van Hoogstraten. Mr Raja contended that Mr van Hoogstraten had received full repayment at the date of commencement of this action (see paragraph 100 of the Re-Re-Re—Amended Particulars of Claim). The pleadings on both sides have undergone amendments (on occasion extensive amendment) since the commencement of proceedings, but the issues have at all times remained substantially the same. In the circumstances I do not think that it is necessary or appropriate do draw any distinction for the purpose of this application between the state of the pleadings at the date of Mr Raja's death and today. But for completeness I shall briefly summarise the course of the pleadings.
By the Statement of Claim dated the 3 rd March 1996 Mr Raja claimed: (1) that by a series of oral agreements he agreed with Mr van Hoogstraten: (a) that Mr van Hoogstraten would make loans at interest to him on the security of some sixteen properties ("the Properties") specified in the Statement of Claim to be purchased or already purchased in the name of Mr Raja; (b) that Mr van Hoogstraten should hold as security for the loans the Land Certificates in respect of the Properties; and (c) that receipts of income or rent in respect of the Properties should go in reduction of the interest due; (2) that such loans were made by Mr van Hoogstraten and such security was provided; (3) that Rarebargain and Castries were Mr van Hoogstraten's companies and under his control; (4) that up till the 31 st August 1993 Mr Raja paid Mr van Hoogstraten the interest he orally demanded and made repayments in respect of the capital of the loans and Mr van Hoogstraten, Rarebargain and Castries received rent and income from the Properties; (5) that in August 1993 Mr Raja refused to make any further interest payment or loan repayment because Mr van Hoogstraten refused to provide proper accounts and (leaving aside receipts of rent and income from the Properties) Mr van Hoogstraten had received loan repayments substantially equal to the sum claimed in July 1989 by Mr van Hoogstraten to have been lent; (6) that Mr van Hoogstraten had wrongfully and without the knowledge or consent of Mr Raja transferred of two of the Properties into the name of Rarebargain and one in the name of Castries. Mr Raja claimed (as against Mr van Hoogstraten) an account of all sums lent on the security of the Properties and (as against Rarebargain and Castries) a declaration that they held the Properties transferred to them as trustees for Mr Raja.
In their Defences Rarebargain and Castries pleaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Devon and Cornwall Autistic Community Trust v The Cornwall Council
...the proceedings. Clearly the circumstances of this case are not comparable to the extreme cases of abuse such as Raja v Hoogstraten [2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch). However, the categories of abuse are many and are not closed. In this case the schedules served simply set out a bald statement of four ......
-
JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others
...The Court must always guard itself against the temptation of allowing its indignation to lead to a miscarriage of justice." 159 In Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch)8 Mr Justice Lightman said that: "28 Striking out Mr van Hoogstraten's Defence and Counterclaim and barring him from......
-
Jsc Bta Bank v Granton Trade Ltd and Others
...a fair trial or prevented the court from doing justice – see Logicrose Ltd v Southend Football Club The Times 5 March 1988; Raja v Van Hoogstraten [2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch) and Arrow Nominees v Blackledge [2000] BLCL 167. 22 The judge was referred to and considered the latter line of authority ......