Shabbir Gheewalla v Saffana Rasul

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Nicholas Thompsell
Judgment Date09 August 2023
Neutral Citation[2023] EWHC 2074 (Ch)
CourtChancery Division
Docket NumberCase No: BL-2020-000672
Shabbir Gheewalla
(1) Saffana Rasul
(2) Akeela Ahmed (claim discontinued)
(3) Hidayat Ali Rasul (claim dismissed)

[2023] EWHC 2074 (Ch)


Mr Nicholas Thompsell

sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Case No: BL-2020-000672




Rolls Building

Fetter Lane

London, EC4A 1NL

Mr Nicholas Thompsell



This short judgment relates to an application made by Mr Shabbir Gheewalla (whom I shall refer to as ‘ Mr Gheewalla’ or the ‘ Claimant’) in relation to his claim for a quantum meruit award for services that he provided to the partnership known as the “Ambassador Hotel Group Partnership” (the ‘ Partnership’) or to the owners of the property formerly comprised in the Partnership.


In my judgment of 12 December 2022 ( Gheewalla v Rasul and ors [2022] EWHC 3180 (Ch) (the “ December Judgment”), I dismissed the Claimant's claim for a consultancy fee due to him equal to one third of the profits from the Partnership based on two alleged oral agreements. I also dismissed also his claim against the Third Defendant, Mr Rasul, for alleged interference in such agreements. However, I accepted that he had a claim against the First Defendant, Dr Rasul and the Claimant's daughter, Mrs Ahmed for a quantum meruit award for the services that he provided to Dr Rasul and Mrs Ahmed during the period from 30 April 2014 to 31 December 2016, This was, however, on the limited basis that the only services to be valued for the purposes of the quantum meruit claim were the services actually provided by Mr Gheewalla in relation to the management of the 51 flats.


Mr Gheewalla had discontinued his claim against the Second Defendant. Mr Gheewalla (through his counsel) has accepted that notwithstanding this discontinuance, his daughter will remain jointly liable for any award made against the First Defendant.


Following directions provided by Deputy Master Teverson through an order dated 4 October 2021, the determination of these matters was to be dealt with initially through a trial as to liability only, on the basis that if a finding be made that monies were due to Mr Gheewalla, the amount owing to him should be determined by a further hearing. Accordingly, the December Judgment dealt only with the question of liability and a further hearing will be needed to deal with quantum.




Following directions provided by me by means of orders on 8 February 2023 and 9 June 2023, the parties, having failed between them to agree on the identity of a jointly appointed independent expert to assist with the quantification of the quantum meruit claim, the Claimant made an application to the court for the court to appoint an expert from amongst those proposed by the Claimant and by the First Defendant, and also vacating the originally scheduled hearing date listed in the three day trial window after 30 August 2023 and rescheduling this for the earliest available date after 31 October 2023. The application requested for the matter to be dealt with without a hearing.


The Claimant's notice was accompanied by a draft order and a supporting witness statement with exhibits.


The First Defendant has responded with her own witness statement also supported by exhibits. The First Defendant has raised no objection to this matter being dealt with without a hearing, and I agree that it is appropriate that I should determine the order to be made in this manner. However, in the interests of open justice I am setting out in this judgment my reasons for making the order.




The principal matter to be dealt with in the application is the appointment of an independent expert to be jointly instructed by parties. The parties were required by my previous order each to propose three possible persons who would be suitable to act as independent expert in this matter and to agree between them which to appoint, or in default of agreement to apply to the court to determine this.


The Claimant has made various suggestions in this regard, including various recruitment agencies but for the most part these were made or, as far as the First Defendant could tell, appeared to be made, without checking the availability of the suggested expert. They were also made without providing to the First Defendant any CV or other information that would allow the First Defendant to make a reasoned assessment of the suitability of such suggested experts. The First Defendant also complains that in the case of some of these proposed experts, the Claimant had unilaterally sent to them prejudicial emails including controversial information.


However the Claimant has, at a late...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 firm's commentaries
  • Appointing Joint Experts: Parties Must Cooperate' Or Pay Costs
    • Bahamas
    • Mondaq Bahamas
    • 5 March 2024 consent and it was unclear why he had withdrawn from a previous proposition that it would be. Footnote 1 Gheewalla v Rasul & Ors [2023] EWHC 2074 (Ch) The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your s......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT