Monthly Archives: February 2025

Arfan Khan leads the 4A Law Ltd intervention in the Court of Appeal in R (on the Application of) Thomas v Judicial Appointments Commission [2024] EWCA Civ 665

Guidance from the Court of Appeal, Judicial Appointments Commission, Public Interest Intervention, Statutory Consultations and disclosure

Arfan Khan leads junior counsel Tahir Ashraf instructed by 4A Law Ltd (4A Law) in the above public interest intervention against the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to be heard in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

A landmark judicial review challenge by District Judge Katie Thomas is the subject of this appeal against the JAC for its refusal to appoint her as a Circuit Judge.

Lord Justice Underhill granted 4A Law permission to intervene in writing and permitted attendance at the hearing to make necessary oral submissions, whilst admitting the evidence (to the extent it may be relied upon at the oral hearing).

The intervention seeks guidance from the Court of Appeal on the circumstances in which the JAC should disclose adverse statutory consultations to judicial applicants. It argues for the true legal interpretation of the statutory scheme governing such disclosure in light of the contextual evidence.

The intervention was opposed by Sir James Eady KC and Robert Moreto instructed by the Government Legal Department.

Arfan Khan has led in other landmark public international law cases instructed by 4A Law such as Benkharbouche v Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2017] H.R.L.R. 15; [2016] QB 347 (both in the Court of Appeal and in the UKSC) and Reyes v Al-Malaki [2016] 1 WLR 1785 (Court of Appeal and in the UKSC in writing).

 

HIGH COURT (CHANCERY DIVISION) ENTERS JUDGMENT FOR THE CLAIMANTS FOR OVER £22.7 MILLION

Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Chancery Division, Commercial and Chancery litigation, Judgment millions

HIGH COURT (CHANCERY DIVISION) ENTERS JUDGMENT FOR THE CLAIMANTS FOR OVER £22.7 MILLION

Arfan Khan represented the successful Claimants in Gangat v Jassat throughout the litigation instructed by Pandya Arbitration Global.  

The Claimants, former part-owners of the Jumbo Group in South Africa, through third parties transferred substantial funds in millions to Swiss accounts in the 1980s and 1990s allegedly in breach of the South African Exchange Control Regulations to avoid the consequences of the Apartheid. Later, when the Apartheid was over, they regularised their financial affairs with the South African Revenue Service. 

The Defendant, a British national, took control of these funds and made investments on the Claimants’ behalf, amassing a significant portfolio of cash and property. Despite holding these assets, the Defendant refused to return them. After over seven years of litigation, the High Court ruled in favour of the Claimants, ordering an account for breach of fiduciary duty. 

The Defendant’s appeal against the decision ordering an account was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Nugee, Lord Justice Stuart Smith, and Lord Justice Warby) on all grounds.  

Thereafter, the High Court awarded the Claimants an interim payment in the $millions and recently entered judgment for the Claimants for over £22.7 million including costs.  

 The reported judgments can be accessed through the following links:

Gangat v Jassat (2022) EWCA 604 (Court of Appeal)
Gangat v Jassat (2021) EWHC 2644 (Ch)

The recent order entering judgment has not been made publicly available.