Vaqar Malik v Bilal Ahmed Malik

Hearing dates: 29–30 July 2025

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30 am on 3 October 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archive.

Introduction

This is my judgment on five applications made in two claims, part of sprawling litigation between the parties which spans almost forty years. In this jurisdiction alone, that litigation has so far involved the county court and the High Court (on multiple occasions), the Court of Appeal (on three occasions) and the Supreme Court (on one occasion). There is also litigation involving third parties, and litigation in other countries.

The main protagonists are two brothers, Iftikhar Malik and Vaqar Malik. They are both Pakistani in origin, and Iftikhar remains resident in Pakistan. But Vaqar is also a British citizen and lives in London. The main object of the litigation appears to be a valuable flat in a prestigious block in central London. The flat is registered in the name of Iftikhar. But Vaqar has for many years now been in occupation and claims the right to remain there. The battleground is the business empire, based on carpets, largely created by their father, Bilal Ahmed Malik.

Because almost all the parties have the same family or surname, I will, without intending any discourtesy, refer to them by their first or given names. The family included Bilal Ahmed Malik and his wife Taj Begum Malik, and their five children, Iftikhar, Sarfraz, Ilyas, Vaqar and Ayesha (who is the only daughter). Both Bilal and Taj are now dead. Taj died in 2004 and Bilal in 2014. But, so far as I am aware, no steps have been taken in the 1987 English Partnership Action (in which they were defendants) to apply for their estates to be represented. Because of the further legal proceedings which have been taken, I should mention that Vaqar married Saira, and they have children, including Fahim and Rahim.

Four of the five applications now before me are made in a claim which was commenced by Vaqar in 2019, under reference BL-2019-001900 (“the 2019 English Partnership Claim”). The remaining one, extraordinarily, is made in a claim which was also brought by Vaqar, and which began as long ago as 1987, under reference CH 1987-M-No. 4627 (“the 1987 English Partnership Action”). These two sets of proceedings are together referred to as the Partnership Proceedings, to distinguish them from other litigation between the same parties, which are claims for possession of a central London residential property referred to below (“the Possession Proceedings”).

I mention here for completeness that Vaqar also launched proceedings in Pakistan in 1987 (“the 1987 Pakistani Partnership Action”). This action was struck out on 7 May 1988. Vaqar appealed the strike out, but in fact withdrew the whole action on 20 May 1999. And Vaqar in addition launched proceedings in Pakistan against his siblings and others relating to the succession to their father's estate in 2019. I refer to these proceedings further below. But they are not relevant to what I have to decide.

The five applications

The five applications now before me are unfortunately not the only extant applications in this litigation. By my reckoning, there are nine altogether (or possibly ten, though I am told that one has now been resolved). Nevertheless, by the order of HHJ Gerald, sitting as a judge of the High Court, dated 16 May 2025, it is the following five applications only that are listed before me on this occasion:

(1) An application by Iftikhar dated 9 December 2024, for extensions of time in which to acknowledge service and challenge the jurisdiction of the court in relation to the 2019 English Partnership Claim;

(2) An application by Iftikhar dated 24 January 2025, making a challenge to the jurisdiction of the English court, but alternatively seeking to strike out, or obtain reverse summary judgment on, the 2019 English Partnership Claim;

(3) An application by Vaqar dated 26 January 2025, for a stay of the application in (2) above, pending the decision in application (1) above;

(4) An application by Vaqar dated 11 March 2025, for an order lifting an automatic stay of the 1987 English Partnership Action imposed by CPR PD51A, paragraph 19(1);

(5) An application by Iftikhar dated 6 May 2025, for an order lifting any automatic stay of the 2019 English Partnership Claim that may have been imposed by CPR rule 15.11, so far as necessary to decide the applications (1) and (2) above.

It will be seen that applications (1) to (3) and (5) concern the 2019 English Partnership Claim. Application (4) alone concerns the 1987 English Partnership Action. Applications (1), (2) and (5) were made by Iftikhar. Applications (3) and (4) were made by Vaqar. These applications were originally listed to be heard by HHJ Gerald (sitting as a judge of the High Court) on 14–15 May 2025. However, on an application made by Vaqar, that judge recused himself, and the applications were relisted before me instead.

I had the benefit of detailed skeleton arguments from both sides in advance of the hearing. Vaqar also put in further documents and written submissions before the hearing began, during it, and indeed after it. The applications were argued orally before me by James Kinman of counsel for Iftikhar, and by Vaqar in person, over two and a half days. Iftikhar's counsel addressed me on all the applications first, over the first morning and a part of the first afternoon. Vaqar addressed me, again on all the applications, for the greater part of the first afternoon and the whole of the second day. Iftikhar's counsel addressed me in reply on the morning of the third day. I then reserved my judgment. This is that judgment.

The evidence

The evidence on these applications was as follows. I have listed them under each of the five applications separately:

(1) application by Iftikhar dated 9 December 2024 (extensions of time): supported by evidence of Adam Polonsky (his solicitor) in the application notice; opposed by witness statement of Vaqar dated 6 January 2025;

(2) application by Iftikhar dated 24 January 2025 (challenge to jurisdiction): supported by witness statements from Adam Polonsky and from Iftikhar, both dated 23 January 2025; in opposition, Vaqar relies on his own witness statement of 6 January 2025 and that of his former solicitor Prakash Patel of 13 April 2022;

(3) application by Vaqar dated 26 January 2025 (for stay on (2)): supported by witness statement from Vaqar dated 26 January 2025;

(4) application by Vaqar dated 11 March 2025 (lifting automatic stay on 1987 action): supported by witness statement from Vaqar dated 11 March 2025; opposed by witness statement from Adam Polonsky dated 11 April 2025;

(5) application by Iftikhar dated 6 May 2025 (lifting automatic stay on 2019 claim): supported by evidence of Adam Polonsky in the application notice.

I make clear that none of the witnesses who made those statements or gave that written evidence was cross-examined at the hearing. Indeed, there was no suggestion (by either side) that there should be any cross-examination. Accordingly, although I am not obliged to accept all the evidence presented (because the witnesses may for example be mistaken), and I can weigh it up, for present purposes I am not at liberty to disbelieve the evidence contained in the affidavits, unless I consider that it was manifestly incredible in light of all the circumstances: see Long v Farrer & Co [2004] BPIR 1218, [57], which the Court of Appeal applied in Coyne v DRC Distribution Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 488, [58].

However, and as I have already said, these applications are made in the context of long-running litigation between the parties, both here and in Pakistan. Over the years, there have been a number of English judgments in the litigation. Some of these are significant in deciding issues between the parties which thereafter cannot be relitigated. So there is no need for evidence on some points. For ease of reference I give brief details here of the earlier English judgments:

9 July 1987 Sir Neil Lawson (High Court)

5 August 1987 Fox, Parker LJJ (Court of Appeal)

21 February 2012 John Jarvis QC [2012] EWHC 711 (Ch)

13 February 2019 HHJ Gerald (County Court)

21 June 2019 Falk J [2019] EWHC 1843 (Ch)

18 December 2019 Zacaroli J [2019] EWHC 3530 (Ch)

17 May 2021 Meade J [2021] EWHC 1886 (Ch)

14 March 2022 HHJ Gerald (County Court)

29 March 2022 Lewison, Peter Jackson, Asplin LJJ [2022] EWCA Civ 411

20 January 2023 Bacon J [2023] EWHC 59 (Ch)

4 November 2024 King, Asplin, Zacaroli LJJ [2024] EWCA Civ 1323

14 March 2025 Leech J [2025] EWHC 778 (Ch)

16 May 2025 HHJ Gerald (High Court)

History of the litigation

The first stage: the 1987 and 2018 claims

For the purposes of deciding these applications, and on the basis of the material before me, first of all, I take the initial facts from the judgment of HHJ Gerald in his judgment delivered on 14 March 2022, to which I have added in footnotes a few additional comments derived from the...