James Kinman acted for the successful applicant in this jurisdiction challenge, made in the context of a sprawling family dispute regarding an alleged partnership in Pakistan.

The Court accepted James’s submissions that the claim had not been served on his client; if it had been, the relevant permission to serve out of the jurisdiction should be set aside; in any event England was not forum conveniens; and the claim was strikable by reason of an abuse of process. The Court also accepted his submissions that the claim was partly barred by cause of action and issue estoppels, partly vested in the claimant’s trustee in bankruptcy, and the rest of it was vested in the personal representatives of the claimant’s parents.

James also successfully resisted an application by the claimant to reactivate proceedings which have been stayed since 1988.

The case is useful for its confirmation that ex parte orders can be set aside if an applicant fails to provide the respondent details of the ex parte application without the respondent having to identify specific failures of full and frank disclosure at the ex parte hearing.

James was instructed by Adam Polonsky of Stephenson Harwood LLP.

Read the full judgment: Malik v Malik [2025] EWHC 2485 (Ch)