The High Court has granted permission to Robert Tchenguiz to rely on particulars of claim three times longer than the usual limit in an action against accountants Grant Thornton and other parties he alleges conspired to induce the Serious Fraud Office to investigate him.
Though Flaux J described the 77-page pleadings filed by lawyers for Tchenguiz as an “absolutely staggering document”, he said that with “considerable reluctance” he would grant consent for them to go beyond the standard 25-page rule for such particulars in the Commercial Court.
The decision allows RT to proceed with his claim for “substantial damages” against defendants including Grant Thornton (“GT”), which firmly denies the allegations made against it and will be seeking an order for security for costs.
The judge’s stance contrasts with that taken in respect of the parallel claim brought by Vincent Tchenguiz (“VT”). In February, Leggatt J ordered VT to go back to the drawing board in his own £2bn claim against Grant Thornton (“GT”) and fellow defendants: GT partners Stephen John Akers and Hossein Hamedani; Kaupthing Bank HF; and Icelandic lawyer Johannes Runar Johannsson, who was a member of Kaupthing’s Resolution Committee and is a member of its Winding Up Committee.
Leggatt J struck out VT’s 94-page particulars of claim in the action and ordered his lawyers to serve replacement particulars half the length.
RT’s 77-page particulars – issued on behalf of him and Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees – make a number of claims against the same defendants arising out of: the public investigation by the SFO into a number of clients of Kaupthing, including RT, in alleged serious fraud in connection with the collapse of the bank; search warrants later ruled to have been obtained unlawfully; “raids” on his home and company premises; and his arrest on 9 March 2011.
The documents states that the claimants seek “substantial damages”, including aggravated and exemplary damages, from the defendants, alleging conspiracy to persuade or encourage the SFO to commence and continue the investigation into RT.
During the hearing, the judge was told that RT is alleging that the defendants deliberately perverted the course of justice, lied to the SFO and controlled the lengthy prior proceedings between RT, VT and the SFO.
In a statement made following the hearing in respect of RT’s particulars of claim, a spokesperson for GT said: “The claim was brought in breach of court rules, and so it was necessary for Mr. Tchenguiz to apply to court to obtain approval, which he has now done.
“Grant Thornton UK LLP, Steve Akers and Hossein Hamedani firmly deny all of the claims being brought by Robert Tchenguiz. We have all acted appropriately and in accordance with our professional responsibilities and legal obligations throughout.
“Grant Thornton is committed to acting in the best interests of our clients, public markets and wider society.”
Next month, GT is expected to make an application to the court for security for costs, likely in the form of an amount paid into court to demonstrate that RT and related parties have the ability to pay GT’s legal costs in the event that the claim is ultimately dismissed.
Tchenguiz and anr v Grant Thornton UK LLP Commercial (Flaux J) 16 )October 2015
