Riyadh Al-azzawi v Hisham Talaat Moustafa

Hearing dates: 3–4 July 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:00am on 18 th July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Table of Contents

Hisham Talaat Moustafa, who is the Defendant and to whom I will refer as such, seeks orders pursuant to CPR Part 11 determining that the court does not have jurisdiction or should not exercise jurisdiction in respect of the claim brought by Riyadh Al-Azzawi, to whom I will refer as the Claimant, and seeking the setting aside of certain orders of the court granted without notice and of the service of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim.

The Underlying Facts

The claim which the Claimant seeks to bring arises out of the shocking and brutal murder of Suzan Abdul Sattar Tamim (‘Ms Tamim’) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’) on 28 July 2008. Ms Tamim, who was a Lebanese national, was a well-known singer in the Arabic world, who had won a Gold Medal at the Arabic version of ‘Pop Idol’, and had made a number of pop singles in Lebanon.

The Claimant is a professional kickboxer. He was born in Iraq in 1975, but fled from that country in 1996 and obtained asylum here. He has British and Iraqi nationality. He has six times been the World Kickboxing Champion. He claims that he lawfully married Ms Tamim in an Islamic ceremony in the UK in April 2007.

The Defendant is a prominent Egyptian businessman, who was head of the Talaat Moustafa Real Estate Group, and was appointed in 2004 to the Shura Council (Upper House) of the Egyptian Parliament. The Claimant's evidence put in on this application indicates that the Defendant had attempted to pressure Ms Tamim into marriage, and that it was this that had forced her to flee Egypt to London, where she had met the Claimant. The Defendant, however, had not abandoned his pursuit of Ms Tamim, and, after making financial offers to her, and an offer of US$2 million to the Claimant to leave her, had then turned to direct threats and intimidation. In the Particulars of Claim, it is alleged that one of these threats was a message sent to Ms Tamim while she was in London, which said, ‘Fifty million dollars says you come back to Cairo to marry me or one million dollars says I have your throat cut.’

The Claimant's evidence is, further, that in July 2008, Ms Tamim travelled to Dubai to stay in the apartment which she and the Claimant owned. On 28 July 2008 she was murdered in that apartment by Mohsen Al-Sukkari (‘Al-Sukkari’), a former officer with the Egyptian police, who took not only Ms Tamim's life but that of her and the Claimant's unborn child. The Dubai police had then launched an investigation, which had gathered evidence indicating that the Defendant had ordered the murder and paid Al-Sukkari a substantial sum for it to be done.

The material put forward on this application shows that criminal proceedings were brought against the Defendant and Al-Sukkari in Egypt. The trial took place, non-continuously, over a period of eight months, during which the court heard evidence from at least 15 individuals from Dubai and 18 from Egypt. On 25 June 2009 both men were found guilty of Ms Tamim's murder and each was sentenced to death. On 4 March 2010 the Egyptian Court of Cassation overturned the convictions of the two men, and the matter was referred back to the Cairo Criminal Court. There was a second criminal trial before the Cairo Criminal Court, and on 28 September 2010 the Defendant and Al-Sukkari were again found guilty. The Defendant was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and Al-Sukkari to life in prison. There was a second appeal to the Court of Cassation. On 16 January 2012, the court overturned the 28 September 2010 ruling of the Cairo Criminal Court and ordered a retrial to be heard in the Court of Cassation. That further retrial took place on 6 February 2012, and the Defendant and Al-Sukkari were found guilty. The Court of Cassation imposed the same sentences as the Cairo Criminal Court had by its ruling of 28 September 2010. The Defendant served his sentence until June 2017, when he received a presidential pardon; Al-Sukkari served his sentence until 2022 when he was released, he also having received a presidential pardon.

It is apparent from the Defendant's evidence that, during the course of the Egyptian criminal proceedings, the Claimant lodged a claim for compensation in respect of the death of Ms Tamim. Specifically, in 2008 he lodged with the Cairo Criminal Court a claim pursuant to Article 251 of the Egyptian Criminal Procedure Law No. 150 of 1950, which allows civil claims for compensation to be heard in a criminal court if the harm suffered is a crime. The claim was based on the allegation that the Claimant had been lawfully married to Ms Tamim, and had suffered harm as a result of her death.

Another man, Adel Reda Maatouk (‘Mr Maatouk’) also lodged a claim for compensation with the Cairo Criminal Court in respect of Ms Tamim's death on the same basis as the Claimant, i.e. that he was lawfully married to her at the time of her death. The evidence is that the civil claims for compensation were considered by the Cairo Criminal Court but, on 25 June 2009, that court did not accept the Defendant's or Mr Maatouk's civil claims and referred both to a competent civil court. Both the Claimant and Mr Maatouk sought to raise their civil claims with the Cairo Criminal Court at the retrial on 28 September 2010, but these claims were again not accepted, apparently on the basis that it had already been ruled that these claims should be referred to a competent civil court. It appears that Mr Maatouk, but not the Claimant, sought to bring a civil claim during the retrial on 6 February 2012, but this was rejected again. It appears that neither the Claimant nor Mr Maatouk lodged a civil claim for compensation with any civil court in Egypt.

These proceedings

On 18 March 2022, Janes Solicitors (‘Janes’), who were at that stage instructed by the Claimant, sent, or attempted to send, a document headed ‘Pre-Action Protocol Served in Accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules of England and Wales’ to the Defendant. The Defendant's evidence is to the effect that, in fact, the Defendant did not receive a copy of that document until September 2022, when it was enclosed with a letter from Janes dated 13 September 2022. The ‘Pre-Action Protocol’ document stated that, if the Defendant did not engage in negotiations to resolve the claim, an application would be made for permission to serve the claim on the Defendant in Egypt, relying on CPR PD 6B paragraph 9(a), namely that the claim was made in tort, and the damage had been sustained in England, because the Claimant resides here. The document said that the claim would be for the grief, psychological and emotional damage which the Claimant had suffered as a result of the murder, including the loss of earnings as a kickboxer which had been caused by reason of the emotional and psychological harm which Ms Tamim's death had induced. The document stated that the law which would be applicable would be the law of the UAE, and stated that an opinion had been obtained from a UAE lawyer on the questions of whether a claim would be actionable in the UAE for damages and losses incurred as a consequence of a murder, and whether the claim would be time-barred. It was said that the advice was that ‘liability definitely exists under the law of the UAE for damages arising from losses sustained by the murder of an individual’; and that a number of enumerated provisions of the UAE Civil Transaction Law ‘clearly do not prevent the initiation of proceedings despite the lapse of time in this case.’

On 26 July 2022 the Claim Form was issued by Janes on behalf of the Claimant. It was marked ‘Not for Service out of the Jurisdiction’. The ‘Brief details of claim’ stated that:

‘The Claimant seeks damages, under English law, alternatively under the law of Dubai, UAE,

(i) In his own right for personal injuries sustained as a result of the death of Ms Tamim;

(ii) Under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, in his capacity as administrator of the Deceased's estate and on behalf of the estate.

(iii) Under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 in his capacity as dependent cohabitant and/or husband for dependency for wrongful death.

Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages under the laws of Dubai, UAE

(i) In his own right for personal injuries sustained as a result of the death of Ms Tamim

(ii) As heir on behalf of the Estate and its heirs; and

(iii) For loss of heirship / dependency for wrongful death.’

On 12 December 2022, the Claimant applied for permission to serve the Claim Form out of the jurisdiction. The only evidence served in support was contained in the Application Notice. Although it was stated that ‘a detailed statement of a UAE lawyer’ would be served prior to the hearing of this application, that did not happen. Particulars of Claim...