Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Mr Salah Hamdan Albluewi (Also known as Sheikh Salah Hamdan Albluewi and Mr Salah Hamdan Albelwi)

Judgment Cited authorities 29 Cited in 5 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Freedman
Judgment Date22 May 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] EWHC 1313 (QB)
Date22 May 2020
Docket NumberCase No: QB-2020-000611
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Categories

[2020] EWHC 1313 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Freedman

Case No: QB-2020-000611

Between:
Les Ambassadeurs Club Limited
Claimant
and
Mr Salah Hamdan Albluewi (Also known as Sheikh Salah Hamdan Albluewi and Mr Salah Hamdan Albelwi)
Defendant

Paul Burton (instructed by CANDEY) for the Claimant

James McWilliams (instructed by Trowers and Hamlins LLP) for the Defendant

Hearing date: 23 rd April 2020

Approved Judgment

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.

Mr Justice Freedman Mr Justice Freedman

I Contents

PARAGRAPH NUMBER

SUBJECT

I Contents

1–3

II Introduction

4–15

III The application for a WFO

16–21

IV The evidence of the Defendant

22–23

V The Claimant's evidence in response

24–27

VI Real risk of dissipation: submissions of the Claimant

28–29

VII Real risk of dissipation: submissions of the Defendant

30–38

VIII Real risk of dissipation: the law

39–61

IX Real risk of dissipation: discussion

62–65

X Is it just and convenient that there should be a WFO?

66–74

XI Full and frank disclosure: the law

75–76

XII The Defendant's case on non-disclosure

77–78

XIII The Claimant's response on non-disclosure

79–83

XIV Non-disclosure: the transcript

84–106

XV Non-disclosure: discussion

107

XVI Conclusions

II Introduction

1

On 6 February 2020, Les Ambassadeurs Club Limited (“the Claimant”) applied without notice before Cavanagh J for a worldwide freezing order (“a WFO”) against Sheikh Salah Hamdan Albluewi (“the Defendant”). The Court duly made a WFO which was continued by Waksman J on 17 February 2020 in a revised form. The Claimant applies for its continuation by application notice dated 17 February 2020 and the Defendant applies for its discharge by application notice dated 9 March 2020. The discharge application is said to be on the basis that (a) there is no real risk of dissipation of assets, (b) it is not just and convenient to have a WFO, and (c) the Claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the without notice application. The Claimant denies each of these matters and says that the continuation of the WFO is necessary in order to continue to prevent the Defendant from dissipating his assets and thereby frustrating the ability of the Claimant to enforce a judgment.

2

The claim is for the sum of £2,000,000 plus contractual interest arising out of the dishonour of 17 cheques and/or a loan for the same sum which was said to be suspended until or unless the cheques were dishonoured. The cheques were dated 7, 8 and 9 September 2019 and the cheques were presented for payment on 23 and 24 September 2019 and returned unpaid on 25 September 2019. There is no issue that the Claimant has a good arguable case, but the proceedings are defended, and the Defendant contends that the debts comprise illegal gambling debts.

3

This judgment will first set out the history of the claim as presented to the Court on 6 February 2020 and the response of the Defendant. It will then identify and consider the issues before the Court.

III The application for a WFO

4

The application was supported by the following affidavits, namely Michelle Elliott of 31 January 2020, Nisrine Mignon of 30 January 2020 and Richard Singleton of 6 February 2020. Pursuant to an undertaking, a supplemental affidavit of Michelle Elliott dated 12 February 2020 was filed. The application was supported by a skeleton argument of Mr Paul Burton of Counsel, who appeared before Mr Justice Cavanagh, and there is a note of that hearing. A revised note was supplied. Although Mr Burton did not require the same, I took the view at the conclusion of the hearing that it would be desirable to have a full transcript of the hearing. When this was not forthcoming despite attempts to procure it, the Court convened a telephone hearing on 5 May 2020 and made a direction to obtain or accelerate the production of a transcript.

5

The Claimant is the owner of a members' club and casino in Mayfair and licensed under the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005. The Defendant is a Saudi national who is ordinarily resident in Saudi Arabia. He was presented to the Court as having been a member of the club for about 26 years and who has participated in gaming to a significant extent on his various visits. His ‘traffic card’ was exhibited to the evidence of Ms. Elliott: this records transactions prior to the above-mentioned ones giving rise to the instant claim.

6

However, the narrative of the skeleton argument and the evidence did not refer to the previous history, albeit that at paragraph 12 thereof, it was said that the Court would be taken through the print out of his account and that the various transactions would be explained. In fact, at the hearing, there were not explained the previous transactions prior to the instant ones of concern in September 2019 which gave rise to the claim. The affidavit of Michelle Elliott at paragraph 5 read as follows:

“The Defendant became a member of the Club on 19 July 1993. A copy of his customer and credit account details (or “traffic card” as it is known) appears at pages 1–9. The Defendant has been a significant player at the Club throughout the course of his membership. At pages 10–12 is a summary of the Defendant's playing history for the period 1 November 1993 to 11 September 2019 which includes details of his buy-in and wins/losses. It shows that the Defendant has visited the Club on approximately 155 separate occasions during that period, and that during the course of his membership, he has bought gaming tokens to the value of approximately £14million, with an overall loss of approximately £5million.]”

7

At paragraph 8, the statement continued as follows:

“The Defendant was originally granted a CCF [a Cheque Cashing Facility] on 6 October 2014 in the amount of £500,000 which was subsequently increased to £1,000,000. On 5 September 2019, the Defendant applied for and was granted an extension of a further £1,000,000 to his CCF in the total amount of £2,000,000 in respect of a “TTO” or “This Trip Only. This is a temporary limit which the Club sometimes grants to customers who are visiting London from overseas, but only once we have carried out enhanced due diligence. The Club knows Mr Albluewi very well, and we were satisfied that he is an individual of considerable wealth, so we were happy to extend his facility to £2,000,000 on a temporary basis.”

8

In the skeleton argument at paragraphs 11 and following, it was set out how his facility worked. Reference is made to winnings of £800,000 from Aspinalls which were used to pay for gaming tokens at the Claimant's Club in the period between 3 September and 9 September 2019. It was stated that the Claimant initially granted an authorisation limit of £500,000 on 28 April 2016, which increased to £1,000,000 on 17 August 2019 and to £2,000,000 on 25 September 2019.

9

It was stated that the Claimant unquestionably had a good arguable case. The submissions as to real risk of dissipation required objective facts from which it can be inferred that there is a risk that the respondent would move or dissipate assets other than in the ordinary course of business in a way which would make enforcement of a judgment impossible or more difficult. It was stated that enforcement in Saudi Arabia of a gambling debt would not be possible, and there was a report of an expert in Saudi law setting out that this was the case.

10

The Claimant stated that it did not allege dishonesty at this stage, and to that extent, did not rely on an allegation of dishonesty at paragraph 12 of the affidavit of Michelle Elliott. The Claimant relied not only on the fact that the cheques had been dishonoured, but also on subsequent assurances that the cheques would be honoured, which had not been fulfilled. The Claimant also referred to repeated attempts to contact the Defendant, which had largely gone unanswered.

11

The chronology appears to be as follows. The cheques were provided between 6 September and 9 September 2019. On 18 September 2019, Ms Mignon wrote to the Defendant to remind him of the dates when they would be presented for payment. Before the time of presentation, she met at what she described as his property at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London in paragraph 8 of her first affidavit. She reminded the Defendant that the cheques were due to be banked. In response, the Defendant said that he would ensure that the cheques would be paid. On 23 September 2019, the cheques were presented for payment and were dishonoured on about 25 September 2019.

12

On 30 September, Ms Mignon sent a text message asking whether he was in London or “home” (in context, meaning Saudi Arabia) and saying that the funds had not been received. In fact, on about 1 October 2019, the Defendant returned to Saudi Arabia. There were further communications by text from Ms Mignon on 8 and 15 October 2019 and a response of the Defendant giving his telephone number in Saudi Arabia. There were further messages from Ms Mignon on 28 October 2019 (the phone number had been used, but she could not get through) and 18 November 2019. The Defendant replied on 19 November 2019 saying that he would take a call, but it seems that there was no call. Accordingly, a letter was sent from the Claimant on 22 November 2019 about the outstanding account. There were further messages and then a further letter from the Claimant was sent on 17 December 2019 referring to the obligation to refer the matter to Central Credit used by casino operators worldwide. There was a communication from Ms Mignon about a settlement meeting that had been agreed in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT