The High Court of Justice recently addressed the admissibility of settlement details in the case of Adnan Omanovic v Shamaazi Ltd and Ismael Abdela Mohammed [2025] EWHC 110 (KB). The court held that terms of settlement with other claimants are inadmissible at trial. The case provides some useful guidance on the treatment of settlement evidence in court proceedings, particularly with multiple parties involved in litigation.

Background

The case revolved around claims of breach of contract and tortious conspiracy against Shamaazi Ltd (Shamaazi) and its director, Ismael Dainehine. The dispute originated from a project called “MyTenNights”, which was designed to facilitate charitable donations during the last ten days of Ramadan. Adnan Omanovic, the Claimant, alleged that he was promised a 25% equity interest in Shamaazi in return for his contributions to the project.

In January 2025, Mr Justice Martin Spencer heard the application of the Defendants, Shamaazi and Mr Dainehine, who sought to exclude the admissibility of the terms of settlement that had been agreed with the second and third Claimants. The claims of the second and third Claimants were similar to that of the Claimant, but the way in which the claims were pleaded were different. The Claimant sought to introduce as evidence the fact of settlement, and the quantum of settlement, on the basis that it was relevant (or at least potentially relevant), and contended that the court needed to know what the evidence was before ruling that such evidence was inadmissible. Further, the Claimant argued that Mr. Dainehine had been dishonest in his defence (supported by a statement of truth, and a witness statement), as there were matters asserted therein that conflicted with the compromise of the other claims.

Court’s finding

Mr Justice Martin Spencer found in favour of the Defendants, recognising that if the settlement terms were admitted, Mr Dainehine would be placed in a difficult position during cross-examination (as the reasons for reaching those terms would be protected by legal advice privilege). Mr Justice Martin Spencer highlighted the importance of encouraging settlement, and that “[i]t would be extraordinary if…it could be said that the decision to defend the case in the first instance implied dishonesty because the case had been settled.” 

The case of Gnitrow Limited v Cape Plc [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1 2327 was considered, but distinguished, as Mr Justice Martin Spencer noted that the facts in that case required the admission of the relevant settlement terms to ensure that the quantum did not exceed 100%. There, the Court of Appeal also made clear that, until or unless there is a close nexus with the decision of the court, it is preferable that the terms of any settlement are not disclosed.

Adnan Omanovic illustrates the court’s commitment to the encouragement of settlement, as well as maintaining fairness in litigation. The reasons behind settlement are no indication of liability, and parties should be free to negotiate a settlement without concern about the details of such settlement being held against them in a claim with other parties at trial.