SNV & 329 Others v Mr Moutaz Al Khayyat

Hearing date: 17 October 2025

APPROVED JUDGMENT

This judgment was handed down remotely at 11.30am on 18 December 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

This judgment concerns the Third Defendant's application, dated 16 June 2025, to strike out the claim in its entirety (“the Application”). The Application is supported by evidence set out in section 10 of the application notice and an accompanying bundle of documents. The Claimants oppose the Application but have not filed any evidence in response.

I am grateful to the advocates for the Claimants and Third Defendant for their skeleton arguments, and the helpful bundle of authorities provided by the Third Defendant. The First and Second Defendants have not been served with the claim and thus have taken no part in the proceedings.

Background

The factual background is not in dispute. Mr Norton's skeleton argument agrees the factual background summarised in paragraphs 4 – 21 of the Third Defendant's skeleton argument. In order to understand the context within which the Application is made, it is however necessary for this judgment to set out the history of this litigation in some detail.

By application dated 26 May 2020, the Claimants' solicitor, Richard Slade and Company Limited (“RSC”), sought permission to issue proceedings against the Defendants without including the Claimants' names and addresses on the claim form, and various other relief. That application was supported by the witness statement of the Claimants' solicitor, Mr Richard Slade, dated 26 May 2020 (“Slade 1”). By order dated 1 June 2020, Master Davison (“the Davison Order”) granted the Claimants' application.

On 17 June 2020, the Claimants (duly anonymised in accordance with the Davison Order) issued the claim form in the index claim. The brief details of claim included the following allegations:

i) The Claimants are Syrian citizens who have suffered substantial loss and damage, including severe personal injuries, destruction of property, loss of profits and forcible displacement from their homes in Syria as a result of the unlawful actions of al-Nusra Front (“ANF”), a designated jihadist terrorist group.

ii) The First and Second Defendants are prominent Syrian/Qatari businessmen who financed and/or assisted in financing the ANF though accounts held by them and/or by entities associated with them at the Third Defendant.

iii) The Third Defendant is a Qatar-based international bank who facilitated payments to and/or the financing of the ANF.

The First and Second Defendants are not domiciled in England and Wales. The claim form gives the same address for each; an address in Doha, Qatar albeit it is unclear whether such address is their last known residence or commercial premises. By paragraph 7 of the Davison Order, the time for service of the claim form and particulars of claim on the First and Second Defendant was extended to 28 days after the determination of a jurisdiction challenge in claim number QB-2019-002712 (“the BB Proceedings”).

On around 17 June 2020, the claim form was served on the Third Defendant at its representative office in London. By paragraph 8 of the Davison Order, the time for service of the particulars of claim on the Third Defendant was also extended to 28 days after the determination of a jurisdiction challenge in the BB Proceedings. No particulars of claim have been served on the Third Defendant to date.

The BB Proceedings

The BB Proceedings, issued on 30 July 2019, are claims brought by BB and 7 other claimants against the First, Second and Third Defendants. At the time of issue, RSC also acted for the claimants in the BB Proceedings. At paragraph 42 of Slade 1, Mr Slade described the BB Proceedings and the index claim as “materially identical”.

As with the index claim, the BB Proceedings were only ever served on the Third Defendant. By application dated 24 December 2019, the Third Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the English court (“the Jurisdiction Application”). Prior to the Jurisdiction Application being determined, the claimants in the BB Proceedings variously discontinued or had their claims struck out.

i) By order dated 16 November 2023, Soole J gave the fourth to seventh claimants permission to discontinue their claims.

ii) By order dated 1 July 2024, Soole J struck out the claim form and re- amended particulars of claim as an abuse of process, and the claims brought by the first, second, third and eighth claimants were accordingly dismissed.

Various arguments as to the costs of the BB Proceedings followed. By order dated 28 February 2025, Soole J ordered the claimants, to varying degrees, to pay the Third Defendant's costs of the BB Proceedings.

The substance of the BB Proceedings has concluded. The only remaining live matters are (a) an appeal by the fourth to seventh claimants against Soole J's costs order, which is listed for February 2026, and (b) the Third Defendant's application for wasted costs against the claimants' solicitor (which by then had changed from RSC to McCue Jury & Partners LLP).

Communications in the index claim

At paragraph 97 of Slade 1, Mr Slade had foreseen that the Third Defendant would likely also challenge jurisdiction in the index claim and that the outcome of the Jurisdiction Application was “likely to be determinative of the Court's jurisdiction over [the Third Defendant] in the [index claim]”. It was for that reason that the Claimants sought, and obtained, the Davison Order to extend the time for service of the claim form on the First and Second Defendants, and the particulars of claim on all Defendants, until after the Jurisdiction Application was determined.

Once Soole J had struck out the remaining claims in the BB Proceedings on 1 July 2024, the Jurisdiction Application was rendered otiose and did not require determination. However, that caused an issue in the index claim as the date for service of the claim form and particulars of claim under the Davison Order was timetabled to 28 days after the determination of the Jurisdiction Application. The Third Defendant's solicitor (“Eversheds”) was alive to this issue and, in late July 2024, commenced what became a protracted chain of correspondence aimed at prompting the Claimants in the index claim into action.

On 29 July 2024, Eversheds wrote to RSC to provide an update on the BB Proceedings and invited the Claimants to discontinue, or, insofar as they intended to pursue the claim, to immediately seek appropriate directions, including as to the service of particulars of claim.

On 29 July 2024, Mr Slade of RSC replied stating he was on holiday but would “look at this when I get back next week”.

On 9 August 2024, Mr Slade sent a further email to Eversheds stating:

“…I've rather lost touch with developments on this case – the action for which I'm responsible has been stayed and I haven't kept abreast of developments in the “lead” action…it would be ambitious to think that I could get back to you in a week…could we agree that you leave your proposal on the table and that I get back to you within a month from Monday (i.e. by 12 September)…”

On 13 August 2024, Eversheds asked for a response by 30 August 2024.

On 2 September 2024, Eversheds chased a response to their letter of 29 July 2024. Mr Slade replied the same day indicating he would do his best to stick to 12 September 2024.

On 6 September 2024, Mr Slade emailed Eversheds stating:

“I have taken some preliminary instructions. I understand that there is a hearing scheduled in the lead case in November. On that basis, I will become more involved between now and then, acquaint myself with the landscape (with which, as I have mentioned) I have entirely lost touch and take a position on your proposal in light of that hearing…”

By letter dated 10 September 2024, Eversheds sought a substantive response to their letter of 29 July 2024, noting that RSC had not explained, and they did not understand, why the outstanding costs in the BB Proceedings impacted on the resolution of the index claim.

RSC did not respond to Evershed's letter of 10 September, and nearly 6 months passed without any communications between the parties.

On 7 March 2025, Eversheds wrote again to RSC pointing out that they had still not received a substantive response to their letter of 29 July 2024, and providing a further update as to costs orders made in the BB Proceedings. They sought a substantive response by close of business on 14 March 2025.

On 17 March 2025, Eversheds chased a response and asked RSC to acknowledge receipt of their letter of 7 March 2025, and to confirm the date by which RSC would provide a substantive response. By email dated 17 March 2025, Mr Slade acknowledged receipt and apologised for not having replied. He continued:

“… It's been pretty frantic for the last two weeks and I'll need to read back into this after such a long period. I will get back to you by Wednesday of next week.”

On 27 March 2025, 2 April 2025, and 3 April 2025, Eversheds chased RSC for a response. No reply was received.

On 25 April 2025, Eversheds sent a further letter to RSC stating that, absent a substantive response by close of business on 2 May 2025, they would seek client...