High court excludes settlement details in MyTenNights charity dispute

High Court Excludes Settlement Details in MyTenNights Charity Dispute

The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Martin Spencer, delivered a significant ruling in the case of Adnan Omanovic against Shamaazi Ltd and Ismael Abdela Mohammed, also known as Ismael Dainehine, regarding the admissibility of settlement details in an ongoing charity-related dispute.

The case revolved around the MyTenNights project, a concept developed by Mr Dainehine in 2016 to facilitate charitable donations during the last ten days of Ramadan, a period considered highly auspicious in Islam. The project aimed to streamline donations to various charities during this time, alleviating the burden on both donors and charitable organisations.

Mr Omanovic, a founding member of the project, claimed he was promised a 25% equity stake in Shamaazi Ltd, the company managing MyTenNights. The dispute arose when Mr Omanovic, along with two other claimants, alleged breach of contract and tortious conspiracy against the defendants.

As the trial approached, the claims of the second and third claimants were settled, leaving Mr Omanovic as the sole remaining claimant. Mr Omanovic sought to introduce evidence of the settlement amounts, arguing that they were relevant to his claim of dishonesty against Mr Dainehine, suggesting that the settlements contradicted the defence's denial of any contractual agreements.

Mr McCourt Fritz KC, representing the defendants, argued that the settlements were irrelevant to Mr Omanovic's case and that admitting such evidence would place Mr Dainehine in an unfair position, potentially breaching legal privilege and undermining the policy of encouraging settlements.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Martin Spencer sided with the defendants, ruling that the settlement details were inadmissible. He emphasised that the court should focus on the evidence surrounding the formation and operation of MyTenNights and the legal agreements involved, rather than on the settlements of other claimants.

The judge referenced the Court of Appeal's decision in Gnitrow Limited v Cape Plc, highlighting the importance of not allowing settlement details to influence the trial unless they directly pertain to the court's decision-making process. He also noted the potential prejudice and policy implications of admitting such evidence.

This ruling underscores the complexities involved in balancing evidential relevance and fairness in legal proceedings, particularly in cases where settlements have been reached with some parties. The decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the trial process while promoting the resolution of disputes through settlement.

Learn More

For more information on contract law and dispute resolution, see BeCivil's guide to Contractor Law.