Mr Ali H Abdulrida v Mr Mahmood Shakir Al-Najar

Hearing dates: 2–4, 10–11, 14–15 December 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.

Introduction

The principal claimants are Mr Abdulrida, Mr Al-Habib and Mr Khurshed, who are three Kuwaiti businessmen and investors. The principal defendant, Mr Al-Najar, was involved in property development in and around Milton Keynes. Between 2012 and 2015, the three Kuwaiti investors invested some £14 million with Mr Al-Najar and with companies controlled by him. The investors have not seen any return on their investments and they have not been repaid the money they invested. Mr Al-Najar is now bankrupt, has left the United Kingdom and is currently living in Iraq. The Kuwaiti investors have brought these proceedings to establish their rights against Mr Al-Najar and his companies. Mrs Al-Najar is involved in these proceedings to the extent that Mr Al-Habib has brought a claim against her in relation to a building plot which is registered in her name. She also is bankrupt.

The Claimants allege that Mr Al-Najar was guilty of fraud in relation to a large number of projects which are now the subject to these proceedings. Mr Al-Najar has not participated in the trial although he has filed a Defence and has served a lengthy witness statement in which he has denied all of the allegations of wrongdoing which have been made against him. Mrs Al-Najar has appeared in person.

The parties

The First Claimant is a businessman and an investor, resident in Kuwait. He gave evidence at the trial by confirming the truth of the contents of two affidavits and one witness statement which he had served. He was briefly cross-examined by Mrs Al-Najar when he confirmed that he had granted a power of attorney to Mr Al-Najar.

The Second Claimant is a businessman and an investor, resident in Kuwait. He gave evidence at the trial by confirming the truth of the contents of two affidavits and two witness statements which he had served. He was cross-examined by Mrs Al-Najar principally in relation to 40 Monkston Park. I also asked him some questions in order to clarify certain matters in relation to that property.

The Third Claimant is a businessman and an investor, resident in Kuwait. He gave evidence at the trial by confirming the truth of the contents of one affidavit and one witness statement which he had served. He was briefly cross-examined by Mrs Al-Najar.

The Fourth Claimant is a company incorporated in Kuwait. It is majority owned and controlled by the First Claimant.

The Fifth Claimant is a company incorporated in Kuwait. It is controlled by the Third Claimant and beneficially owned by his family.

The Sixth Claimant is a company incorporated in Kuwait. It is controlled by the Third Claimant and beneficially owned by his family.

The First Defendant is Mr Al-Najar. He was born in Iraq in 1970. Mr Al-Najar came to the United Kingdom from Iraq in 1991. He trained as a commercial pilot and worked as a pilot until 2001. In 1996, he started a business developing and renovating houses in the Milton Keynes area. He traded as Al-Najar Trading. Over the years he has incorporated a number of companies all using the word “Prestige” as part of their names. The first of these companies was Prestige Homes Ltd, incorporated in August 1999. I will refer below to other Prestige companies which are now Defendants to this claim. He married the Second Defendant in August 2001 and they have three daughters.

In these proceedings, a freezing order was made against Mr Al-Najar, initially on 9 May 2018, and continued thereafter. The freezing order required Mr Al-Najar to provide certain information to the Claimants and in compliance, or purported compliance, with that order, Mr Al-Najar has provided a witness statement and affidavits. On 5 June 2018, Mr Al-Najar was made bankrupt on his own application. On 11 June 2018, Mr Al-Najar served a Defence to the claim. Mr Al-Najar is currently in Baghdad, Iraq and appears to have been there in the period since these proceedings began, although it also seems he has been in the United Kingdom on an occasion or occasions during that period. His trustee in bankruptcy is Mr Nicholas Barnett. He is aware of these proceedings but has not been made a party to them and has taken no part in them. On 22 October 2020, Mr Al-Najar served a lengthy witness statement (102 pages). The trial of this claim was conducted at a remote hearing. Mr Al-Najar did not participate in the trial. In particular, he did not give oral evidence and he did not cross-examine the Claimants' witnesses. I will discuss, later in this judgment, what course I will take in relation to the lengthy witness statement which he has provided.

The Second Defendant is the wife of the First Defendant. Mrs Al-Najar was made bankrupt in October 2018. Her trustee in bankruptcy is Mr Lloyd Hinton. He is aware of these proceedings but has not been made a party to them and has taken no part in them. Mrs Al-Najar has participated in this litigation at various stages. She served a Defence. She has served affidavits and witness statements. She participated throughout the hearing which was conducted remotely. She gave evidence and made submissions.

The claim against the Third Defendant has been compromised.

The Fourth Defendant is Prestige Homes Broughton Ltd (“Broughton”) which was incorporated on 13 January 2012.

The Fifth Defendant is now known as FAPCC Ltd but was formerly known as Prestige Homes Civil Constructions Ltd (“Civil Constructions”). It was incorporated in March 2010.

The Sixth Defendant is Prestige Homes (Developments) Ltd (“Developments”). It was incorporated on 13 March 2009.

The Seventh Defendant is Prestige Homes Improvements Ltd (“Improvements”) which was incorporated in September 2010.

The Eighth Defendant is Prestige Homes Brooklands Ltd (“Brooklands”) which was incorporated on 5 February 2013.

The Ninth Defendant is now known as Viceroy Property Investment Ltd but was formerly known as Prestige Rental Properties Ltd (“Rental Properties”). It was incorporated in April 2009. On 1 May 2019, Rental Properties was ordered to be compulsorily wound up. The joint liquidators are Nicholas Barnett and Kevin Kallis.

Mr Al-Najar's brother, Mr Ahmad Al-Najar, is named as the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Defendant sued as the trustee of three trusts, the names of which include the names of Mr Al-Najar's three daughters.

The claims against the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Defendants have been compromised.

There are references in the documents to other companies incorporated by Mr Al-Najar, namely, Prestige Homes Ltd, Prestige Homes Estate Agents Ltd, Prestige Renovations and Constructions Ltd and Prestige World Travel Ltd. Prestige Homes Ltd went into administration on 24 April 2017, and has since been placed into liquidation.

I was also given information about the involvement of Mr Al-Najar with a Mr Al Nesnas. The relationship between these two led to Mr Al Nesnas bringing proceedings against Mr Al-Najar, Developments and Improvements. In those proceedings, Mr Al Nesnas alleged that he had invested money as a result of certain statements made to him by Mr Al-Najar. Mr Al Nesnas alleged that he had made an oral agreement with Mr Al-Najar and written agreements with Developments and Improvements. In the proceedings, Mr Al Nesnas alleged that Mr Al-Najar had made various fraudulent, alternatively, negligent representations to him which had induced him to invest. Mr Al Nesnas also claimed damages for breach of contract and other relief. He applied for and obtained summary judgment and, in February 2017, following judgment, the court granted a freezing order over the assets of Mr Al-Najar, Developments and Improvements. Mr Al-Najar appealed to the Court of Appeal against the summary judgment and the Court of Appeal gave its judgment in relation to that appeal on 10 July 2018. The neutral citation of that judgment is [2018] EWCA Civ 1619. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in relation to the summary judgment based on the alleged misrepresentations but substituted judgment for damages to be assessed for breach of contract by Mr Al-Najar, Developments and Improvements. That judgment was essentially based on the...