Al-Aggad v Al-Aggad and Others

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Neutral Citation[2024] EWHC 226 (Comm)
Year2024
CourtKing's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
King’s Bench Division *Al-Aggad v Al-Aggad and others [2024] EWHC 226 (Comm)

2023 Oct 17, 18, 26; 2024 Feb 6

Christopher Hancock KC sitting as a deputy High Court judge

Practice - Service - Validity - Claim form served by claimant failing to include claimant’s address - Whether service invalid - Whether defect curable under court’s general power to remedy errors of procedure - CPR rr 3.10, 16.2(1)(e), PD 16, para 2

The claimant brought claims against the defendants for breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy. The claim form served on the third defendant, which was served by the claimant rather than the court, did not include the claimant’s address as required by CPR r 16.2(1)(e) and PD 16, para 2.1F1. The third defendant applied for a declaration that there had been no valid service, contending that since by PD 16, para 2.3 the court would not serve a claim form without an address unless a valid dispensation had been given it followed that a claimant should not be able to do so either; and that the defect in service could not be cured pursuant to the court’s general power in CPR r 3.10 to remedy errors of procedure.

On the application—

Held, refusing the application, that where a claim form was stamped by the court and the claimant was left to effect service, CPR PD 16 did not provide for an express sanction for non-compliance with the requirement in CPR r 16.2(1)(e) and PD 16, para 2.1 that the claim form include an address at which the claimant lived or carried on business; that the defect constituted by a claim form which did not contain an address for the claimant was capable of being remedied by the court pursuant to its power in CPR r 3.10 to rectify errors of procedure, there being no superadded requirements in PD 16 which prevented the application of that general power to address the consequences of non-compliance with the specific requirement in PD 16, para 2.1; that the principle of open justice, while important, did not lead to the conclusion that a claim form which did not comply with the requirements of the CPR in relation to the inclusion of an address could not be validly served; that, in the present case, the court should exercise its discretion under CPR r 3.10 to remedy the defect in the claim form; and that, accordingly, service had been validly effected on the third defendant, notwithstanding the lack of an address for the claimant on the claim form (post, paras 6364, 109).

The following cases are referred to in the judgment:

AEP v Labour Party [2021] EWHC 3821 (KB)

AMM v HXW [2010] EWHC 2457 (QB)

Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44; [2013] 1 WLR 2043; [2013] 4 All ER 119, SC(E)

Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Castle Investment Fund Ltd [2015] EWHC 3832 (Ch)

BNP Paribas SA v Open Joint Stock Co Russian Machines [2011] EWHC 308 (Comm); [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 61

BNP Paribas SA v Open Joint Stock Co Russian Machines [2012] EWHC 1023 (Comm)

Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12; [2018] 1 WLR 1119; [2018] 3 All ER 487, SC(E)

Beriwala v Woodstone Properties (Birmingham) Ltd [2021] EWHC 6 (Ch)

Bill Kenwright Ltd v Flash Entertainment FZ LLC [2016] EWHC 1951 (QB)

Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC); [2021] BLR 459

Cecil v Bayat [2011] EWCA Civ 135; [2011] 1 WLR 3086, CA

G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB); [2010] EMLR 14

IMS SA v Capital Oil and Gas Industries Ltd [2016] EWHC 1956 (Comm); [2016] 4 WLR 163

Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v Mastercard Inc [2022] EWCA Civ 14; [2022] 1 WLR 1541; [2022] 4 All ER 118, CA

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2011] EWHC 2988 (Comm)

Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd [1971] AC 850; [1970] 3 WLR 287; [1970] 2 All ER 871, HL(E)

Kennedy v Charity Commission [2014] UKSC 20; [2015] AC 455; [2014] 2 WLR 808; [2014] 2 All ER 847, SC(E)

Marconi Communications International Ltd v PT Pan Indonesia Bank Ltd [2004] EWHC 129 (Comm); [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 594

Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corpn of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391, HL(E)

Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 330 (TCC); [2023] BLR 111

Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group (UK) Ltd [2023] EWHC 2126 (TCC)

NAB v Serco Ltd [2014] EWHC 1225 (QB)

Olafsson v Gissurarson (No 2) [2008] EWCA Civ 152; [2008] 1 WLR 2016; [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 1106, CA

Pitalia v NHS England [2023] EWCA Civ 657; [2023] 1 WLR 3584; [2024] 3 All ER 66, CA

R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Practice Note) [2022] EWCA Civ 355; [2022] 1 WLR 2339; [2023] 1 All ER 821, CA

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 937 (Comm)

Serbian Orthodox Church—Serbian Patriarchy v Kesar & Co [2021] EWHC 1205 (QB); [2021] Costs LR 709

Stunt v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 511 (QB)

Taylor v Evans [2023] EWHC 935 (KB)

Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, CA

Williams & Glyn’s Bank plc v Astro Dinamico Cia Naviera SA [1984] 1 WLR 438; [1984] 1 All ER 760, HL(E)

The following additional cases were cited in argument or referred to in the skeleton arguments:

A v British Broadcasting Corpn [2014] UKSC 25; [2015] AC 588; [2014] 2 WLR 1243; [2014] 2 All ER 1037, SC(Sc)

Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corpn [2022] EWHC 826 (QB); [2022] 4 WLR 74

CDE v NOP [2021] EWCA Civ 1908; [2022] 4 WLR 6; [2022] 2 All ER (Comm) 691, CA

CVB v MGN Ltd [2012] EWHC 1148 (QB); [2012] EMLR 29

Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd v Al Sanea [2021] EWHC 2937 (Comm)

Elmes v Hygrade Food Products plc [2001] EWCA Civ 121; [2001] CP Rep 71, CA

Gray v UVW [2010] EWHC 2367 (QB)

H v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Practice Note) [2011] EWCA Civ 42; [2011] 1 WLR 1645; [2011] 2 All ER 324, CA

Johnson v Devon and Cornwall Police [2023] EWHC 690 (Ch)

Libyan Investment Authority v Société Générale SA [2015] EWHC 550 (Comm)

Libyan Investment Authority v Société Générale SA [2016] EWHC 375 (Comm)

Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545; [2000] 4 All ER 268, HL(E)

OT Africa Line Ltd v Hijazy (The Kribi) (No 1) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 76

Officer L, In re [2007] UKHL 36; [2007] 1 WLR 2135; [2007] 4 All ER 965, HL(NI)

Practice Guidance (Interim Non-Disclosure Orders) [2012] 1 WLR 1003

Rawlinson and Hunter Trustees SA v Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 266 (Comm)

Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417, HL(E)

Singh v Grief to Grace [2022] EWHC 2999 (KB)

Steele v Mooney [2005] EWCA Civ 96; [2005] 1 WLR 2819; [2005] 2 All ER 256, CA

Texan Management Ltd v Pacific Electric Wire and Cable Co Ltd [2009] UKPC 46; [2010] 4 LRC 1, PC

Various Claimants v Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority [2021] EWHC 2020 (QB); [2022] EMLR 4

X (formerly Bell) v O’Brien [2003] EWHC 1101 (QB); [2003] EMLR 37

XXX v Persons Unknown [2022] EWHC 2776 (KB)

APPLICATIONS

By a claim form dated 5 May 2022 the claimant, Rana Al-Aggad, brought claims for breach of contract and unlawful means conspiracy against the defendants, Talal Al-Aggad, Tarek Al-Aggad and Lama Al-Aggad. The third defendant was served on 15 July 2022.

By an application notice dated 5 October 2023 the third defendant applied for a declaration that the service had been invalid because the claim form that was served did not contain the claimant’s personal address.

By an application notice dated 11 October 2023 the claimant applied for dispensation of the inclusion of her personal address on the claim form because of the potential for personal danger to her and her son if her personal address became known.

The facts are stated in the judgment, post, paras 23, 68.

Anthony Peto KC and Shane Sibbel (instructed by PCB Byrne LLP) for the claimant.

Stephen Houseman KC and Richard Hoyle (instructed by Jones Day) for the first and second defendants.

Fionn Pilbrow KC and Vanshaj Jain (instructed by Forsters LLP) for the third defendant.

The court took time for consideration.

6 February 2024. CHRISTOPHER HANCOCK KC handed down the following judgment.

Introduction

1 I have before me a number of applications, which are themselves preparatory for a potential forum non conveniens application currently listed for February 2024. Whether those applications do go ahead will depend on my decisions in this judgment, since the defendants, for various reasons, do not accept that they have been validly served by the claimant (“C”).

The background facts

2 C is the sister of the three defendants. D1 and D2 are her brothers, whilst D3 is her sister.

3 C is a Saudi national and refugee living in Canada [REDACTED]. She was granted refugee status by the Canadian authorities on 12 July 2011.

4 It is necessary for me to set out in some detail the allegations made by C, although I emphasise that I make no final findings in this regard. I discuss the relevance of this material below.

(1) [REDACTED]

(2) [REDACTED]

(3) [REDACTED]

(4) [REDACTED]

(5) [REDACTED]

(6) [REDACTED]

(7) [REDACTED]

5 [REDACTED]

6 In summary, therefore, C submits that:

(1) [REDACTED]

(2) [REDACTED]

(3) it is necessary for C to refer to and rely upon that history for the purposes of these proceedings, both on the present applications and in the course of explaining, in particular, the relevant background to her claims and how (on C’s case) the defendants have taken advantage of her position to deprive her of the practical value of her shares in AICO (an investment holding company called Aggad Investment Co (also known as Omar Abdel-Fattah Al Aggad & Co), which was incorporated in Saudi Arabia by the parties’ father, Mr Omar Al-Aggad, in 1975) [REDACTED];

(4) [REDACTED]

(5) similar fears persuaded (i) the Canadian authorities to grant C refugee [REDACTED]; and

(6) [REDACTED].

The current proceedings

7 In these proceedings, C claims against all three defendants for breach of contract and for unlawful means conspiracy. For the purposes of this judgment, I do not need to go into the details of the underlying claims.

8 The current English proceedings were issued on 5 May 2022. On 15 July 2022, D3 was served with the proceedings personally whilst at Heathrow Airport. The family have a London apartment and a Surrey property.

9 On 22 July...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
  • Rana Al-Aggad v Talal Al-Aggad & Ors
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 6 February 2024
    ...could not be achieved within the period of validity of the claim form. The evidence was that service through diplomatic means in Saudi[2024] EWHC 226 (Comm) Case No: CL-2022-000230 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES KING'S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIA......