Amanda Stephanie Clutterbuck and Another v Sarah Mohammed Saleh Al Amoudi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Asplin,MRS JUSTICE ASPLIN |
| Judgment Date | 20 February 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 383 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 20 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC12A02469 |
[2014] EWHC 383 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
Mrs Justice Asplin
Case No: HC12A02469
Stuart Cakebread and Paul de la Piquerie (instructed by GuneyClark & Ryan) for the Claimants
Jonathan Seitler QC and Emer Murphy (instructed by Clarkslegal LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 July 11 and 12 November 2013
Approved Judgment
(REDACTED VERSION)
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
The Claimants' claim is for fraudulent misrepresentation, deceit and breach of trust. These claims arise out of various property dealings in and around Knightsbridge, Belgravia, Chelsea and Westminster, London, (the Area).
The First Claimant, Ms Clutterbuck has since 1985 been engaged in the business of acquiring, refurbishing, letting and selling and financing the development of properties in the Area. The Second Claimant, Mr Paton assists Ms Clutterbuck in her business by finding opportunities to acquire, refurbish, let, sell and redevelop properties.
But for the period during which it is alleged that unbeknownst to Ms Clutterbuck, Mr Paton and the Defendant were having an affair, it is not disputed that since about 1994 the Claimants have lived as man and wife. Nevertheless, they maintained separate finances and property holdings, albeit that they have been jointly interested in development projects from time to time.
The Defendant, Ms Al Amoudi is the owner of various properties in the Area. The circumstances in which she acquired those properties is at the centre of this case.
In summary, the Claimants' case as put in the Re-Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is that Ms Al Amoudi was introduced to Mr Paton by Elliott Scott Nichol, ("Mr Nichol") as a potential joint venturer in relation to property development in the Area and was introduced as a person who represented very substantial Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern investors. It is pleaded that amongst other things, it was orally represented that Ms Al Amoudi is a Saudi Arabian princess, the daughter of Sheikh Mohammed Al Amoudi a Saudi Arabian/Ethiopian billionaire, was a member of the Saudi Arabian Royal Family by marriage, that her mother was related to the Saudi Arabian Royal Family and that both Ms Al Amoudi and her family were interested in investing in property in the Area.
It is said that the representations together with the manner in which Ms Al Amoudi conducted herself as a woman of immense wealth, were relied upon by Mr Paton and as a result he was induced to enter joint ventures and agreements in relation to properties on his own behalf and that of Ms Clutterbuck. The Claimants contend that the representations were false and were known to be so by Ms Al Amoudi who was guilty of fraud and deceit.
It is said that Ms Clutterbuck was wholly unaware of the participation of Ms Al Amoudi in any of the property ventures until 2009 and therefore, that the representations were made to Mr Paton and through him to Ms Clutterbuck whose money was used in the transactions. In fact, Ms Clutterbuck gave evidence that Mr Paton was the person dealing with all the property joint ventures which are the subject of the action and that she was not involved. Save for her involvement in the Hans Place development to which I refer below, I accept her evidence in this regard.
In essence, there are two main heads of claim. The first is that pursuant to joint ventures, induced by the fraudulent misrepresentations, the Claimants transferred £2.282m to Ms Al Amoudi or her agents in relation to the purchase of various properties and in addition, paid between £800,000 and £1m in refurbishment costs in respect of properties all of which are registered in Ms Al Amoudi's sole name.
The second head relates to what became known as the Hans Place Joint Venture. The Claimants had already participated in the assembly of a site at 53–56 Hans Place in part through a company called Knightscross Limited in which Ms Clutterbuck had an interest. The assembly consisted of the purchase of various flats within the buildings. The Claimants were interested in extending the scheme to include the entirety of 48–56 Hans Place and 5–7 Herbert Crescent which is adjacent to it.
It is said that both Mr Nichol and Ms Al Amoudi were involved and that in April 2008, Ms Al Amoudi undertook to secure Sharia mezzanine financing through a Middle Eastern consortium in the sum of £46m. As a result of an alleged representation by Ms Al Amoudi that a Sharia loan had been obtained, which was untrue, Mr Paton says that he was persuaded to transfer six properties which became known as the Security Properties to Ms Al Amoudi at an undervalue. As a result of what is said to be the fraudulent misrepresentation as to the availability of the Sharia finance and the payment of the alleged arrangement fee, measured against the background of the other alleged misrepresentations as to Ms Al Amoudi's identity, the Claimants seek to rescind those transfers or alternatively, contend that Ms Al Amoudi holds the properties on trust for them.
In her Defence, it is said that there were no joint venture contracts or arrangements to which Ms Al Amoudi was a party, whether in relation to Hans Place or otherwise. On the contrary, it is said that any involvement which Mr Paton may have had in Ms Al Amoudi's property dealings was in his role as her trusted adviser in the context of a romantic relationship between them. It is denied that the Claimants paid for the refurbishment of Ms Al Amoudi's properties and it is said that the £2.28m used in the purchase of properties was by way of repayment by Mr Paton of monies which he owed to her.
Further, Ms Al Amoudi contends that she had no knowledge of the Hans Place Joint Venture agreement and that the Security Properties were transferred to her at less than their full value as a set off for the monies owed by Mr Paton to her which she had lent to him. She denies any knowledge of Sharia mezzanine finance.
Ms Al Amoudi counterclaims for there turn of certain documents, a number of items of jewellery which she says that she gave to Mr Paton for safe keeping and in respect of sums which she says she lent to him or gave him for safe keeping and which were not returned.
Background to the proceedings
I should explain that this matter has been a long time in coming to trial. The claim was commenced in the Truro County Court in February 2010 by Ms Clutterbuck alone. Ms Clutterbuck produced her own Particulars of Claim in which she alleged that she had suffered loss as a result of Ms Al Amoudi's deceit but had not been aware either of Ms Al Amoudi or of the loss until the death of Mr Nichol in December 2009. Mr Nichol was described as Ms Clutterbuck's business partner. No mention was made of any joint venture but that as a result of deceit Ms Clutterbuck's funds had been transferred to Ms Al Amoudi without Ms Clutterbuck's knowledge or authorisation.
In fact, no mention was made of any joint venture in the skeleton argument for the Claimants for the hearing of Ms Al Amoudi's application to set aside the judgment obtained against her in default. Joint ventures were first mentioned in Ms Clutterbuck's second witness statement sworn the day before that hearing. In any event, the judgment in default was set aside in September 2010. The matter was transferred to the Central London County Court and from the Central London County Court to this division of the High Court.
On 10 May 2010, Ms Clutterbuck had emailed Ms Al Amoudi's litigation solicitor, Mr Morris about Ms Al Amoudi's possessions which had been left in a garage at 80 Pavilion Road. In the final paragraph of that email she stated:
"I have had no knowledge of your client whatsoever, until her conversion, and the unauthorised transfer, of my properties into her name, was recently made known to me. I have never given permission to your client to make use of my garaging for storage, nor to have her make use of my flats for her family and friends, without my knowledge or authority. …
For the record Ian Paton is under a Court Order not to make contact with me and any liaison necessary in relation to family commitments etc have to be made by appointment with third parties and third parties must also be present. Witnesses will confirm that he has, since I discovered your client's conduct subject to my claim, returned all keys and other documents etc he holds in his possession…."
However, in cross examination, Ms Clutterbuck accepted that the statement in relation to the Court Order was completely untrue. She said that she had made it in order to protect her family from what she described as harassment. She said that her daughter had been subjected to constant ringing of the door buzzer at 54 Hans Place and that over Christmas 2009, her father's home in Cornwall had been searched by police who were looking for a woman in a burkha who had allegedly been kidnapped. This was confirmed by Ms Annett Osborne. Ms Al Amoudi was found to be in her flat in London with the solicitor who had assisted her in her asylum application, Mr Shah. Ms Clutterbuck said therefore, that her ploy was to lead Ms Al Amoudi's solicitors to believe that there was distance between her and Mr Paton in order to avoid such behaviour which she viewed as harassment.
I should mention that in March 2010, Ms Osborne had applied for planning permission in respect of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amanda Stephanie Clutterbuck and Another (Claimants/Appellants) v William Cleghorn (as judicial factor to the estate of Elliot Nichol deceased)
...and filed and closing submissions took two days in November 2013. 24 The judge handed down her judgment on 20 February 2014 ( [2014] EWHC 383 (Ch)). She dismissed the claim and allowed part of the counterclaim. She made a large number of findings. Mr Jonathan Seitler QC, who has appeared o......
-
Ian Paton v Rosesilver Group Corporation
...events, her evidence "was repetitious and guarded", and she too "was an unsatisfactory witness": see Clutterbuck and Paton v Al Amoudi [2014] EWHC 383 (Ch) at [21] to [24]. Background 10 Mr Paton and Ms Clutterbuck are experienced property developers, who have invested in and developed many......
-
Rosesilver Group Corporation v Ian Paton
...J delivered judgment at the end of a twenty day trial in which the claimants (Mr Paton and Miss Clutterbuck) failed on all claims [2014] EWHC 383 (Ch). They were refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but they have now apparently made a renewed application in which they are a......
-
Howell v Al Amoudi
...using nominees which, according to Mr Roscoe, is a misreading of a particular paragraph of a judgment entitled Clutterbuck v Al Amoudi [2014] EWHC 383 (Ch). 41 Lastly, there was the reference to Miss Al Amoudi's alleged willingness to take avoiding payment to extremes, in relation to which ......