The Honourable Mrs. Justice Bacon has today handed down judgment in the case of Hasan Dalkilic & Sevim Pekin -v- (1) Metin Pekin and (2) Paragon Property Investments Limited  EWHC 219 (Ch). The Dalkilic case concerned a dispute between members of two closely connected Turkish Alevi families over the ownership of Paragon Quality Foods Limited (“Paragon”), a successful burger manufacturing business incorporated in England in 1996. Michael McParland QC represented the Claimants at trial.
After a four-week, fully remote trial in the Chancery Division, with witnesses giving evidence from different locations across the UK and Turkey, and with a large part of the cross-examination being conducted through Turkish interpreters, the Judge found for the Claimants. A copy of the judgment can be found here.
The ownership of Paragon
For the reasons set out in the judgment, the Court has declared that:
(a) The First Claimant (Hasan Dalkilic) is, and has been at all times since the incorporation of Paragon in 1996, the beneficial owner of 25% of the shares in the company, and that the Second Defendant (“PPIL”) holds those shares on trust for him.
(b) The Second Claimant (Sevim Pekin) is, and has been at all material times since a date falling between September and 11 November 2000, the beneficial owner of 10% of the shares in Paragon, and that the Second Defendant (“PPIL”) holds those shares on trust for her.
PPIL were ordered to sign and deliver share transfer forms and PPIL and the First Defendant (Metin Pekin) were required to take, and procure that Paragon takes, all further necessary steps forthwith to effect the transfer of the shares and the registration of the shares in the name of Hasan and Sevim respectively.
£1.675 million in dividends to be paid to the Claimants
The Court ordered that payments totalling over £1.675 million in respect of previously declared dividends should be made to the Claimants, with a further hearing scheduled to consider the question of what further interest, if any, should be paid on those dividends.
Indemnity Costs ordered and an interim payment on account of the Claimant’s costs of £1.55 million
The Defendants were ordered to pay the Claimants costs, to be assessed on the indemnity basis, after the Court found that the First Defendant, Metin Pekin, had given dishonest evidence to the Court; had coordinated and, at very least, significantly influenced the evidence of witnesses called by the Defence, whose evidence was not only unreliable but clearly and obviously untruthful; while at the same time he was making unfounded accusations of dishonest collusion on part the Claimants and their witness.
The Defendants were ordered to make an interim payment of £1.55 million on account of the Claimants’ costs.
The Defendants’ counterclaim was dismissed, and the Court refused permission to appeal.
At trial, Michael McParland QC led Bobby Friedman of Wilberforce Chambers, and counsel were instructed by Navinder Grover of Trowers & Hamlins LLP, and his team of Emily Aggett, Natasha Kausley, and Kelly Matthews.