Arnold Ayoo successfully represented the Fourth (D4) and Sixth Defendant (D6) in summarily defeating claims of deceit, conspiracy, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and unjust enrichment. In a rare instance of the court granting summary judgment in a fraud claim, Andrew Twigger KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed all continuing claims against D4 and D6. 

D1 and D3 were husband and wife. Arnold represented their adult children, D4 and D6 (“the Children”), who were accused of being co-conspirators in a fraud with their parents. The fraud consisted of D1-D3 obtaining $14m from a retinal surgeon in the US and his company (the Claimants), on the promise of investment in a fictious “trading programme” backed by a Saudi prince and the US Federal Reserve.

D1 and D3 dissipated the monies, including by transferring £100,000 to each of their Children, who always claimed to be innocent recipients. The Children paid the £100,000 into court as soon as they found out about the proceedings and the Claimants subsequently succeeded in a proprietary claim to that sum ([2023] EWHC 540 (Ch)). The Children were nevertheless pursued by the Claimants for the full $14m as alleged co-conspirators with their parents.

In 2024, Arnold successfully resisted an application to debar the Children from defending the proceedings ([2024] EWHC 1189 (Ch)). The Children subsequently applied for reverse summary judgment on the fraud claims.

Crucially, the application was made post-disclosure which allowed the Judge to analyse the pleaded claims against the evidence likely to be available at trial. The Judge found that the claims against the Children were fanciful, speculative, and unsupported. The Children’s evidence was consistent with being innocent recipients of gifts from their parents and there was no reason to think cross-examination at trial would undermine that evidence.

The decision provides a useful illustration of the approach a court will take when assessing fraud claims, post-disclosure, against apparently peripheral parties.

Arnold was instructed by Laura Nelson and Ben Croft of Crofts Solicitors.

The full judgment can be found here: Gupta v Shah [2025] EWHC 1811 (CH)