Rahman (Prince Abdul) bin Turki al Sudairy v Abu-Taha
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE WALLER,LORD JUSTICE DUNN |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1980 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1980] EWCA Civ J0612-6 |
| Docket Number | 1980 BWO 822 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 June 1980 |
[1980] EWCA Civ J0612-6
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Waller and
Lord Justice Dunn
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
(Mr. Patrick Bennet, Q. C., Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division)
MR. J. A. KELLY (instructed by Messrs, Peter T. James & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff (Appellant).
MR. G. LAURENCE (instructed by Messrs. Joynson-Hicks & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Defendants (Respondents).
This is an unusual case. The plaintiff, Prince Abdul Rahman Al Sudairy lives in Saudi Arabia. He is a man of great wealth. He entered into negotiations to buy an expensive motor-car in England an Aston Martin Lagonda - for the sum of £34,000. He negotiated with two men, Abu-Ghosh and Abu-Taha. They were two young men. They came originally from Kuwait. According to their own accounts they have been in England for many years and are permanently resident here. They met when they both went to the Bath Technical College and took their 'A' levels there. Abu-Taha went on to Bristol University. Abu-Ghosh went to London University. They afterwards set up business together in office premises on the 6th Floor, 49 Park Lane, W.1. That is a block of offices which houses several Middle East firms. They carried on business under the name of Sarco Enterprises. We know nothing about that firm except that it is said to be registered in Liechtenstein.
In the course of the negotiations for the Aston Martin Lagonda (for £34,000) Prince Abdul Rahman Al Sudairy drew two cheques, one in favour of Mr. Abu-Ghosh for £12,000 on 13th March, 1978; and the other on 7th February, 1979, for £22,000 in favour of Sarco Enterprises. Both those cheques were paid into Barclays Bank (Park Lane Branch).
The deal did not go through. The car was not delivered. On the 25th November, 1979, Abu-Taha purported to return the money. He drew a cheque for £34,000 in favour of Prince Abdul Rahman Al Sudairy. It was drawn on an account at Barclays Bank (Park Lane Branch) under the name of Abu-Taha External Account.
The cheque was not honoured. It was returned marked "Refer to drawer". Prince Abdul Rahman Al Sudairy sued for his money. He issued a writ on the 6th February, 1980 against the two young men. He took out a Summons under Order XIV. The young men put in affidavits of defence. They denied that they ever agreed to sell the plaintiff an Aston Martin Lagonda Motor-Car. Abu-Taha said that his cheque for £34,000 was not a repayment. It was a loan by him to the plaintiff.
Prince Abdul Rahman Al Sudairy, in support of his claim, seeks a Mareva injunction against these two gentlemen. The summons under Order 14 is coming on in about a fortnight: and he is fearful that any money they have will have disappeared by the time he gets judgment. It may be transferred to Kuwait, or somewhere else, and it may be difficult to get old of it. So he asks for a Mareva injunction.
The matter has come before several Judges, On the 6th February, 1980 Smith J. granted a Mareva Injunction. On 25th February, 1980 Robert Goff J. discharged it because the defendants swore that they were resident in England. On the 6th Dune, 1980 Peter Pain J. reimposed it. On the 9th June, 1980 Mr. Patrick Bennett, Q. C., sitting as a Deputy Judge, discharged it. The plaintiff appeals to this court asking that a Mareva Injuction should be granted.
On the hearing before us further affidavits were filed and the case argued inter partes. This further evidence goes far to show that the plaintiff has a strong case for the return of the £34,000. It also shows that, although the defendants are permanently resident within the jurisdiction, they are most secretive about their home addresses. In their affidavits both give their addresses as "6th Floor, 49 Park Lane, London": but that is a business office, lie are told that it is now empty and deserted. Neither of them gives his home address. Abu-Taha says: "I rent a house in North West London, where I live with my wife and child, I own two motor-cars. Together with the Second Defendant I own furniture and fittings valued in excess of £25,000."
Abu-Ghosh says:
"I own a house in London, where I live with my wife. I bought it four years ago. I estimate the value to be between £80,000 and £90,000, I own two motor-cars valued at approximately £28,000."
So these two young men, on their own statements, have accumulated great wealth during their short time in business. But neither of them gives his home address - as under the Rule each ought to have done, Why not? It leadsme to think that they are not at all trustworthy. Their houses may be in the names of nominees so as to prevent creditors getting their hands on them. At any rate, the circumstances suggest to my mind that there is a risk that, if the plaintiff should get judgment, he may find that before he can issue execution, the defendants may have disposed of their assets. They may have taken them out of the jurisdiction or transferred them to someone here.
So the case raises distinctly the question: Can a Mareva injunction be granted against a defendant who is resident in this country? In the Agrabele (1979) 2 Lloyds Law Reports 117, Mr. Justice Lloyd held it could not. I can understand his hesitation at first instance in extending the principle of Mareva. But things are moving rapidly. We considered the position in the case of Chartered Bank v. Daklouche (unreported 16th March, 1978) and Third Chandris Corporation v. Unimarine (1979) 1 Queen's Bench at page 667. I intimated there that a Mareva would lie against a person within the jurisdiction. The Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Payne considered the problem in their Report on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts (Command 3909, paragraphs 1248 to 1255)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Central Development Sdn Bhd (No 2); Klasse Department Store Sdn Bhd
- Sato Kogyo Company Ltd v Pengkalan Enterprise Sdn Bhd
-
Lindsay (Delroy) v Attorney General of Jamaica
...(Court of Appeal), Barclay-Johnson v. Yuill [1980] 3 All ER 190 (Chancery Division-Sir Robert Megarry, Vice-Chancellor), and Prince Abdul Rahman v. Abu-Taha [1980] 3 All ER 409 (Court of Appeal). 89 In Third Chandris Shipping v. Unimarine, Lord Denning, MR, in stating his understanding of......
- Metrowangsa Asset Management Sdn Bhd v Ahmad Bin Haji Hassan
-
The Mareva journey - from the atlantic to the Caribbean
...from granting a Mareva injunction in the circumstances of the present case on a worldwide basis; 16 [1980] 1 All E.R. 205. 17 [1980] 3 All E.R. 409. 18 [1984] 1 All E.R. 398. 19 [1989] 1 All . E.R.456. 20 [1989] 1 All E.R. 1002. 21 Ibid., at 1018. 22 [1986] 3 All E.R. 487, at 495-496. 23 [1......
-
Mareva Injunctions and Third Parties: Exposing the Subtext
...[1975] 3 All ER 282, 283; Chartered Bank vDaklouche note10 above, 210; Rhaman (Prince Abdul) bin Turki al Sudairy vAbu-Taha [1980] 1 WLR 1268,1273.121 See ‘Assets held by a third party who is prone to follow the defendant’s interests or directions’ above.122 The defendant’s ‘property’ in a ......