A high court judge has referred the production and dissemination of a forged version of a high court ruling on a fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Khalid Affara’s Arab Investments to the government’s top law officer.
This morning, Ms Justice Proudman gave her decision to refer the matter to Dominic Grieve, the attorney general.
The fraudulent misrepresentation claim has been brought by Saudi Arabian investor Dr Abdelrahman Abbar.
He contends that he invested £500,000 in Arab’s proposed 945ft Pinnacle tower development on Bishopsgate, London EC2, in 2007, in the belief that he would see a return on his investment within 12 to 18 months.
Arab denies any misrepresentation, claiming that it only asset manages the Pinnacle on behalf of Saudi Economic & Development Co (SEDCO).
However, at a high court hearing three weeks ago, Deputy Judge Nicholas Strauss QC heard that Dr Abbar sent a “radically altered” version of his judgment on a preliminary dispute to SEDCO, media outlets in
The judgment had allegedly been altered to suggest, among other things, that the deputy judge had made a finding of fraud against SEDCO – on the basis of that and other findings in the judgment Dr Abbar claimed that he would be entitled to damages in the region of £10m.
On that occasion the deputy judge issued an injunction restraining Dr Abbar from further disseminating the “unauthorised version” of the judgment. However, he declined to make any further orders on the ground that Dr Abbar had not been informed of the application and had been unable to instruct his lawyers.
At the latest hearing last week, Duncan Macpherson, counsel for Dr Abbar, told Proudman J that there was “insufficient evidence of any criminal contempt by Dr Abbar”, who had since filed evidence that had “thoroughly exculpated” him.
Dr Abbar, who claims not to have known that the judgment had been altered, has offered to inform all the recipients of the unauthorised version that it was not the correct one.
Referring the matter to the attorney general, Ms Justice Proudman said that it was clear that a serious criminal contempt of court had been committed and it was for the attorney general to investigate and determine whether it was in the public interest and there was sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution and against whom.
The judge made it absolutely clear that she was not in a position on the evidence to make any findings against any individual or individuals.
christian.metcalfe@estatesgazette.com
To access all EGi news stories and commercial property data sign up for a free trial today, or visit the subscription options page to find out more.
