gunnercooke secures victory for the Defendant in Ahmed v Miah as High Court dismisses appeal in full 

gunnercooke Dispute Resolution Partner, Khaled Moyeed, has secured a significant victory for the Defendant in Ahmed v Miah [2026], successfully defending an appeal brought by the Claimant against the re-trial decision handed down in February 2025 by His Honour Judge Holmes.  

The High Court dismissed the appeal on all three grounds and ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs of the appeal. This result endsa complex and hard-fought dispute spanning over five years of litigation, in which the Defendant has succeeded at every stage following his original successful High Court appeal which overturned the December 2021 decision. 

The Litigation History 

The case was first tried in December 2021, where judgment was entered in the Claimant’s favour. The Defendant successfully appealed, and the High Court ordered a full re-trial before a different judge. At the re-trial in January 2025, His Honour Judge Holmes dismissed the claim in its entirety following a careful examination of all the evidence, including a transcript of the November 2018 meeting. The judge found that the alleged compromise agreement was not binding: the repayment terms were too uncertain, there was no agreed monthly sum, timeframe, or period for repayment, and the Defendant had not demonstrated the requisite intention to create legal relations, with the transcript revealing that his promises at the meeting were “vague and non-committal.” The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.  

The appeal 

Undeterred, the Claimant sought permission to appeal on three grounds: (i) whether there was an original underlying debt enforceable by the Claimant; (ii) whether the Court should imply terms into the November 2018 compromise agreement; and (iii) whether the judge had failed to take all relevant evidence into account on intention to create legal relations. 

On ground one, the response was that this ground was fundamentally misconceived. The claim as pleaded in the Particulars of Claim had never sought to enforce the original debt (only the compromise agreement), limitation had long expired, and no application to amend had ever been made. 

On grounds two and three, the response emphasised that HHJ Holmes’ findings were firmly grounded in the trial evidence, most notably the transcript of the November 2018 meeting, which revealed that Mr Miah had been vague and non-committal throughout and had refused to commit to any specific repayment amount or schedule. The appellate court should be slow to interfere with a trial judge’s careful evaluation of the evidence and findings of fact. 

The High Court agreed. The appeal was dismissed on all three grounds. The Court upheld HHJ Holmes’ analysis in full, confirming that his findings on uncertainty and intention to create legal relations were well-founded. 

On costs, the Claimant argued that because he had been granted permission to appeal, the Defendant should not be entitled to recover all of his costs. The judge firmly rejected that submission, making clear that the grant of permission to appeal does not alter the ordinary costs consequences that follow when an appeal is dismissed. The Defendant was awarded his costs in full. 

Reflecting on the outcome, Dispute Resolution Partner Khaled Moyeed said: “We are absolutely delighted with this result for our client. After years of litigation, including two County Court trials and two High Court appeals, it is enormously satisfying to see his position vindicated at every level of the court system. This final judgment draws a line under what has been a long and stressful process.” 

Khaled instructed William Spence of Selborne Chambers for the appeal hearing. 

You can learn more about Khaled’s practice here.