Aiman Meqham Almeqham v Maan Bin Abdul Wahed Al-Sanea & Ors
| Judge | JONATHAN HILLIARD KC |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 322 (Ch) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Counsel | Richard Morgan Kc,Duncan Mccombe |
| Date | 14 February 2025 |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 322 (Ch)
Claims Nos. BL-2024-000741 and BL-2024-000799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
CHANCERY DIVISION
14 February 2025
Before :
JONATHAN HILLIARD KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B E T W E E N:
AIMAN MEQHAM ALMEQHAM
(Liquidation Trustee of Maan Bin Abdul Wahed Al-Sanea and Saad Trading,
Contracting & Financial Services Co.)
Claimant
-and-
(1) MAAN BIN ABDUL WAHED AL-SANEA (an individual in liquidation)
(2) BELGRAVE PROPERTIES (BELIZE) LTD. (a company incorporated in Belize)
(3) CLIFTON PROPERTIES (ST. LUCIA) LTD. (a company incorporated in St. Lucia)
(4) GOLDSPRING LTD. (a company incorporated in the Republic of Seychelles)
(5) MARLOW PROPERTIES (NEVIS) LTD. (a company incorporated in the
Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis)
(6) WINCHESTER PROPERTIES (BERMUDA) LTD. (a company incorporated,
following re-domiciling, in the British Virgin Islands)
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Andrew Hunter KC and Barnaby Lowe (instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP) for the Claimant
The First Defendant was not represented and did not appear
Richard Morgan KC and Duncan McCombe (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the
Second to Sixth Defendants
Hearing dates: 17-18 December 2024
1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPROVED JUDGMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JONATHAN HILLIARD KC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:
Introduction
1.The Claimant is the liquidation trustee of Mr Al-Sanea and Saad Trading, Contracting
& Financial Services Co. (“STCFSC”), appointed by 2March 2022 order of the
Saudi Arabian Courts (the “2022 Order”). On the application of the Claimant, the
Saudi Arabian liquidation proceedings in which the Claimant has been appointed (the
“Saudi Arabian Proceedings”) were recognised in England and Wales pursuant to
the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (the “CBIR”) by 16 February 2024
orders (the “Recognition Orders”).
2.Having obtained recognition, the Claimant has issued proceedings against the
Defendants for (a) a declaration that the Second to Sixth Defendants (“D2-D6”), who
are offshore companies, held 19 English properties (the “English Properties”)on
resulting or constructive trust for Mr Al-Sanea and/or STCFSC following a purported
transfer to D2-D6 in 2012 by two other companies, Markant Holdings Inc
(“Markant”) and Saad Inc. (the“Trust Claim”), and (b) in the alternative, an order
under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that title to the English Properties
should be vested in the Claimant on the ground that the 2012 transfers were made for
the purpose of putting them beyond the reachof Mr Al-Sanea’sand/or STCFSC’s
creditors (the “s.423 Claim”).
3.By24 May 2024 order, Richard Farnhill sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
(“DHCJ Farnhill”) granted the ex parte application of the Claimant for permission to
servetheDefendants out of the jurisdictionandgrantedaproprietaryinjunction,
which has been referred to before me as the asset preservation order (the“APO”).
The claim was served out of the jurisdiction on D2-D6 and, the Claimant considers,
on Mr Al-Sanea, who is currently serving a 9 year prison sentence in Saudi Arabia.
The Claimant also purported to serve on D2-D6 within the jurisdiction, at the address
thatthey had given for the purposes of the Economic Crime (Transparency and
Enforcement) Act 2022 (the“2022 Act”). However, in case that does not constitute
valid service for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Claimant brought the
service out application as well.
4.Four applications are before me:
(1) The application of D2-D6 to set aside service out of the jurisdiction and have the
claims against them dismissed (the “Jurisdiction Challenge”).
(2) The Claimant’s application to continue the APO on the return date of the
injunction (the “Return Date Application”).
(3) The Claimant’s application to amend its particulars of claim (the “Amendment
Application”), both in response to points made by D2-D6 in the course of their
2
Jurisdiction Challenge and also to deal with documents reviewed following the
production of the original version.
(4) The Claimant’s application for substituted service upon the First Defendant (“Mr
Al-Sanea”) (the “Substituted Service Application”).
5.As recently as 25 October 2024 it was common ground between the parties that all
four applications could be heard together. However, in the immediate lead up to the
hearingD2-D6contendedthatthe hearingshould be limitedto dealing withthe
Jurisdiction Challenge (and if the Court thought fit the Substituted Service
Application), on the grounds that:
(1) the Return Date Application and Amendment Application would not be relevant if
the Jurisdiction Challenge succeeded;
(2) there was not time in the 1.5 day hearing before me to deal with the Return Date
Application and Amendment Application; and
(3) D2-D6 would risk submitting to the jurisdiction if they made substantive
submissions on the Return Date and Amendment Applications.
6.Therefore, D2-D6 only appeared before me in relation to the Jurisdiction Challenge,
although, as I shall come onto later, Mr Morgan did address me relatively briefly on
theotherapplications.MrMorganrestedtheD2-D6’sstanceorallyonpoint(1)
above.
7.I considered that I should hear submissions on the Return Date Application as well
before deciding how to deal with it, for the following reasons:
(1) The return date was listed for this date with the consent of D2-D6.
(2) It is efficient for me to deal with it if I can given that I am hearing the Jurisdiction
Challenge.
(3) The Jurisdiction Challenge was initially listed for 1 day and in my judgment it did
not require the full 1.5 day slot before me.
(4) There has been a late change of stance by D2-D6, in the 4 December 2024 letter
of Pinsent Masons. The only basis on which the change was put is that the Return
Dateand Amendment Application would not be necessary if the Jurisdiction
Challenge was successful, but that could not realistically be determined during the
hearing.
(5) I do not consider that D2-D6 contesting the continuation of the APO or the
Amendment Application would constitute submission to the jurisdiction if D2-D6
explained that they were opposing the continuation of the APO without prejudice
to their primary position that there was no jurisdiction over them. It is clear from
SWAY Investments Ltd v Sachdev [2003] 1 WLR 1973 at [44]that it is possible to
oppose a freezing injunction without submitting to the jurisdiction as long as one
makes clear that one is not so submitting and the same is in my judgment equally
true in respect of a proprietary injunction. This reflects the general principle that a
submission to the jurisdiction needs to be unequivocal. Taking objections to the
continuation of an injunction as a fallback in case one is wrong on jurisdiction
arguments is consistent with maintaining one’s objection to jurisdiction. This also
ensures that cases can be dealt with efficiently where- as here- it is convenient to
3
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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