Gibson Dunn and one of its clients have together been ordered to stump up £880,000 along with its client because one of its partners misled the High Court.

The ruling is the latest embarrassment for the firm arising out of the collapse of its case against a businessman from the Republic of Djibouti. Abdourahman Boreh was implicated in a grenade attack in the African republic thanks to misdated phone transcripts. The High Court has ruled that Gibson Dunn partner Peter Gray knew they were bogus, but submitted them anyway to secure a freezing order against Boreh's assets. He also tried to use the transcripts to get Boreh extradited to a prison cell, where he would presumably have enjoyed electric ball-zapping for the rest of his days.

 



...even when a Gibson Dunn partner tries to land you in the clink with dodgy evidence

To Boreh's evident relief (witnessed by RollOnFriday in the court), the freezing order was lifted once his solicitors uncovered the error. But a furious Flaux J found that Gray had deliberately misled the court. In a subsequent hearing he has ordered the firm and its client to make an interim payment of £880,000 towards the costs Boreh incurred because his fortune was locked up. And there could be more financial pain to come: the court is currently considering Boreh's initial costs claim, which tops £1 million.

Gibson Dunn has tried to draw a line under the affair by suspending Gray and reporting itself to the SRA, but it's not having much luck. As well as the prospect of more hearings, its troublesome partner is seeking permission to appeal Flaux J's ruling to the Court of Appeal. And bringing a bit of unwanted celebrity sparkle, ex-Leeds United MD David Haigh is now bringing a private prosecution against Gray for allegedly blackmailing him into flying to Dubai and trafficking him to the authorities. When Haigh stepped off the plane he was promptly thrown in jail, where he's been languishing for nearly a year without charge. Operation Please Quietly Go Away Already: fail.
Tip Off ROF

This Week’s News

The content for this week is not available yet.

Comments

Anonymous 10 April 15 11:48

Since we are helping:

"witnesed by RollOnFriday in the court"

Happy sunny Friday everyone!

Anonymous 10 April 15 13:06

I think he should appeal although having read the very through judgment which went through the whole sequence of emails unless there is new evidence it is likely he won't win the appeal. He may have thought the dating issue would not really matter as there was more than enough other evidence - a not unreasonable assumption and the court was in the end told of the date error and I didn't really believe the huge efforts the judge went through to suggest so often the QC had no idea about the dating error which smacked of he protesteth too much... but an appeal is probably sensible for a lot of reasons.

Anonymous 15 April 15 16:24

As this article rightly notices, Peter Gray is appealing the Judgment. He vehemently denies dishonesty and no incontrovertible evidence of dishonesty was placed before the Court: rather, the findings against him were solely the product of inference, including inferences as to what witnesses who were not called might have said if they had been.

Views on Mr Gray's integrity should be withheld pending the judgment on appeal when the matter may appear in a very different light.

Dr Julian Critchlow