Re Al M (Assurances and Waiver)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Andrew McFarlane P,Sir Andrew McFarlane |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 67 (Fam) |
| Date | 17 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: FD19P00246, FD19P00380, FD19F05020, FD19F00064 |
| Court | Family Division |
[2020] EWHC 67 (Fam)
The Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane
President of the Family Division
Case No: FD19P00246, FD19P00380, FD19F05020, FD19F00064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Pannick QC, Alex Verdan QC, Sudhanshu Swaroop QC, Desmond Browne QC, Lewis Marks QC, Patrick Gibbs QC, Daniel Bentham and Adam Speker (instructed by Stewarts Law) for the Applicant Father
Charles Geekie QC, Tim Otty QC, Guglielmo Verdirame QC, Sharon Segal, Kate Parlett and Isabel Buchanan (instructed by Payne Hicks Beach) for the Respondent Mother
Deirdre Fottrell QC, and Thomas Wilson (instructed by Cafcass Legal) for the second and third Respondent Children
Hearing dates: 11 th, 12 th, 13 th and 15 th November 2019
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.
The release of this judgment to nominated members of the UK press is subject to a four hour embargo ending at 4pm on 5 March 2020 pursuant to the Order of the President of the Family Division dated 5 March 2020. Publication of any part of this judgment before that time is prohibited by that Order.
After the judgment has been published at 4pm on 5 March 2020 it is important to stress that certain reporting restrictions will remain in force pursuant to the Reporting Restriction Orders made by the President of the Family Division dated 28 January 2020 and 3 February 2020. The Reporting Restriction Orders have been served on the media; copies are available from the Royal Courts of Justice Press Office.
This is a further judgment in the proceedings relating to the children of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (‘the father’) and Her Royal Highness Princess Haya bint Al Hussein (‘the mother’). The background to these proceedings were rehearsed in detail in the fact-finding judgment which was handed down on 11 December 2019 and will not, therefore, be repeated here.
The focus of this judgment is upon certain assurances and waivers given by the father in order to meet the mother's concerns that, as the Ruler of Dubai and Head of Government of the United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’), the father's position under international law may protect him from any of the enforcement powers that this court might otherwise have were he to breach the terms of any order this court may make with respect to the two children.
The protection offered by the father falls into two categories. Firstly, a series of assurances (‘the assurances’) set out in a formal document signed by the father, as Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai made on his own behalf and on behalf of the UAE and the Emirate of Dubai. The document is also signed by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the UAE and the Director General of the Government of Dubai Legal Affairs Department. The assurances document was signed by each of the three signatories on 4 October 2019. On its face it is addressed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom Government, to this court and to the mother.
The assurances document records that the father “is entitled to and enjoys privileges, immunities and inviolability under international law and under English Law, by reason of his position as Vice-President of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) and/or as Prime Minister (Head of Government) of the UAE and/or as Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai.”
Five assurances are given by the father personally, by the UAE and by the Emirate of Dubai. In summary, they are:
(1) The UAE will not seek to invoke the father's immunity as to the applications before this court, or his immunity or inviolability as to the execution or enforcement of any orders made in those applications;
(2) If any “special missions immunity or inviolability” is obtained for the father for a special mission to the UK, it will be waived for the purposes of the applications, including execution or enforcement;
(3) “Neither His Highness, nor any person acting on his behalf, nor any person acting on behalf of the UAE or the Emirate of Dubai will remove the children from the jurisdiction of England and Wales, unless in accordance with any order of the English courts made in the applications”;
(4) The children will be returned to the mother's care after any period of contact in the UK in accordance with any order of this court made in the applications;
(5) The children will be returned to the mother's care after any period of time spent with the father in the UAE, in accordance with any order of the English court made in the applications.
The assurances document defines “the applications” as being the four applications with the case numbers FD19P00246, FD19P00380, FD19F05020 and FD19F00064.” The assurances are stated to apply only to the applications and to orders made to the applications. The assurances expressly exclude any matters relating to the father attending the English court and/or giving oral evidence. The assurances are expressly stated as “intended to be legally binding.”
In a second document, signed by the same three signatories on 4 October 2019, various of the immunities enjoyed by the father as Vice-President of the UAE and/or as Prime Minister (Head of Government) of the UAE and/or as Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai are expressly waived (‘the waiver document’). The waiver, which the document expressly confirmed is made by the father personally, by the UAE and by the Emirate of Dubai, relates to the following:
(1) The immunity of the father as to the applications and only the applications is waived;
(2) The immunity of the father as to execution of any order made in the applications is waived;
(3) The inviolability of the father in relation to enforcement of any order made in the applications is waived;
(4) The inviolability of the premises of the father in the UK (including certain properties named in the waiver document) in relation to enforcement of any order made in the applications is waived.
The waiver document defines “the applications” as set out in paragraph 6 above. The waivers are stated only to apply to the applications and to orders made in the applications. Again, the waiver document expressly excludes any matters relating to the father attending the court proceedings in England and/or giving oral evidence.
The case put forward before this court by the father and, conversely, the mother can be shortly stated. The father asserts that the assurances and the waiver provide a robust, reliable and legally sound regime which will be sufficient for the mother and this court to have confidence that the father, and those responsible for the actions of the Emirate of Dubai and the UAE, will abide by the terms of any contact orders made with respect to the time that the father wishes to spend with the children. The mother's position is to the contrary. She submits that, both in terms of form and substance, neither the assurances nor the waivers have any value in terms of providing protection for the children or reassurance for the mother or the court.
In more ordinary circumstances, where an individual lay party is offering undertakings to the court, the precise wording of the undertaking given might be the subject of detailed negotiation between the parties and scrutiny by the judge. That is not so in this case. The father's legal team stand and present his case on the basis of the precise wording contained in the two documents dated 4 October 2019, subject to the possibility of a minor extension to include the address of a further UK property. Lord Pannick QC, leading for the father, explained the position in opening:
“…but can I make it very clear, although we are prepared, of course, to discuss with my friends the drafting of the declaration, in particular to include in it notes which record the assurances we have given, my very firm instructions are not to go any further, we are not going to give further waivers, we are not going to give further assurances. …Can I just briefly say why that is the father's position. His position is that he has given a series of waivers, a series of assurances, he has made a [number] of concessions in this case and it is quite something of significance from his perspective for a Sovereign State, the UAE, to give assurances and waivers of the sort that Your Lordship has in this court.”
The father's position is that each time he has offered some concession, the mother's side have asked for more. He has therefore drawn a line and stands on the extent and detail of the two documents to which I have referred.
Although the giving of formal assurances on behalf of a Sovereign State in order to support a private law application by a parent to spend time with their children is a rare, if in fact unprecedented, occurrence in the English courts, there is, in the event, little dispute between the two sides as to the legal context within which both the assurances and waivers fall to be considered. Such dispute as there is, and where there is dispute it is important, relates to matters of form and procedure rather than to the overall standing in law of these two mechanisms by which the ordinary respect to be afforded to a Sovereign State and to the Head of its Government might be reduced, limited or neutralised in certain circumstances. It is not therefore necessary for me to now embark upon a detailed exposition of the legal background. The matter can be taken very shortly.
An assurance may be given by or on behalf of a Sovereign State as to its future conduct. Whilst in force the assurance stands and will be given force under international law. An assurance can, however, be withdrawn by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GFH Capital Ltd (a company incorporated in the Dubai International Financial Centre of the Emirate of Dubai) v David Lawrence Haigh
...in Re Al M dating from December 2019 and January 2020 but previously subject to reporting restrictions ( [2019] EWHC 3415 (Fam), [2020] EWHC 67 (Fam) and [2020] EWHC 122 (Fam)). Mr Haigh says these show that the Ruler of Dubai used a “campaign of fear and intimidation”, including death thre......