At first instance Millett J gave a lengthy judgment which had to deal with a broad array of legal issues, including tracing, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt.

Court of Appeal overturned Millett J on the finding that the recipient company had sufficient knowledge, adopting another analysis of the facts.

The case was then remitted back to the High Court for determination of damages, and a second judgment is reported at El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc (No 2) [1995] 2 All ER 213.

The principle issue in the judgment (of Robert Walker J) was whether the plaintiff could claim the entire sum remaining in the hands of DLH, or only a rateable proportion (the other share belonging in equity to the other victims of the fraud).

The court held that as none of the other victims had come forward, the plaintiff could claim the entire sum (up to the maximum amount of his total loss).