![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Sharab v HRH Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Bin Abdal-Aziz Al-Saud [2008] EWHC 1893 (Ch) (31 July 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1893.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 1893 (Ch) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
B e f o r e :
____________________
MRS DAAD SHARAB | Claimant | |
-and- | ||
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE AL-WALEED BIN TALAL BIN ABDAL-AZIZ AL-SAUD | Defendant |
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
THE CLAIM AND THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
THE PROCEEDINGS TO DATE
THE FACTS
Mrs Sharab
The Prince
Mr Alaeddin
Background history: Mrs Sharab and Libya
Background history: Mrs Sharab and the Prince
The Cannes conversation
"During this conversation, the Prince told me that he would pay me commission for effecting an introduction to the President and arranging the deal, but we did not discuss how much commission I would be paid.
The Prince instructed me not to start to negotiate the sale of the aircraft until the new plane was ready. That was likely to be a considerable period of time as he had a number of personal requirements and extra equipment to be added. He said he would send Mr Alaeddin to agree a contract with me. I left Cannes on or about 8 August 2001 and returned to London."
The alleged contract
"On 25 August 2001, the Prince sent Mr Alaeddin after me to London to meet with me and discuss the proposed sale of one of the Prince's aircraft to Libya for the President, as the Prince had informed me he would do. We met in a London restaurant, Ayoush, James Street, London W1. The sole purpose of Mr Alaeddin's visit, so far as I was aware, was to discuss this deal and agree the terms on which I was to act. Mr Alaeddin told me that the Prince would pay me US$2 million commission if I could sell either one of the aircraft to Libya for the President and US$1 million commission if I could secure an investment in Project Toushca. No prices were discussed at this stage as to how much the Prince wanted for each aircraft as it was not yet known which one, (if at all), would be able to be sold. The Prince wanted to obtain an investment of US$20 million in Project Toushca. As Mr Alaeddin represented the Prince, I considered this to be a firm offer, which I accepted verbally. When I did so I was acting in a personal capacity and not through TAWCO, as indeed was the position in all of my dealings with the Prince. Nevertheless, I told Mr Alaeddin that I would still like to hear confirmation of this commission directly from the Prince."
"Mr Alaeddin said that he recalled discussing the possible sale of one of the Defendant's aircraft to Libya and the possible investment by Libya in the Toushca Project on one or more of these occasions, although he said that he did not think that he would have travelled to London specifically to meet the Claimant at the Defendant's request.
Mr Alaeddin said that he did not recall putting any offer to the Claimant nor discussing specific commission amounts with the Claimant, in relation either to the proposed aircraft sale or the investment in Project Toushca, at those meetings. Mr Alaeddin said that he certainly had no recollection of the figures of US$2m and US$1m referred to by the Claimant at paragraph 51 of her Witness Statement."
Mr Alaeddin said that, in relation to the aircraft sale, he doubted that he and the Claimant would have discussed figures at such an early stage, when it had not even been decided which of the Defendant's two aircraft was to be sold
Project Toushca was an agricultural project in Egypt which was being undertaken by one of the Defendant's companies. Mr Alaeddin said that, at the time, the Defendant had retained Arthur Andersen Middle East to find investors for the Project and that Libya was a potential investor because it had set up an agricultural investment holding company in Egypt. Mr Alaeddin said that he and the Claimant may have discussed the possibility that Libya might invest in the project and the Claimant's possible help in that process.
Mr Alaeddin said that he did not recall offering, or entering into, any sort of agreement with the Claimant, for the figures alleged in her Witness Statement or otherwise, at the meeting. Mr Alaeddin said that he simply did not have authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the Defendant and that it was not his job to do so."
The August 2002 call
The alleged variation in April 2003
"The Prince told me that the aircraft actually cost him US$90,000,000 (although in a letter from the Prince to the President, he subsequently stated that it cost him US$135,000,000). I wanted to improve the terms which we had agreed, because I knew how much money I would be making for the Prince if I could broker this sale, especially bearing in mind the use the Prince had already had from the aircraft, and so I requested that the contract between us be varied so that I would receive a margin of the sale price in the proposed transaction. The Prince told me that, if I could sell the aircraft for between US$100 million and US$110 million he would pay me the US$2 million commission (which had been agreed previously) but that if I was able to negotiate a sale at above US$110 million, I could keep anything above that US$110 million. He also confirmed that if I could persuade Libya to invest US$20 million in Project Toushca my commission would in respect of this investment would be the US$1 million (which, as I have already stated, had been agreed previously).
I suspect that the Prince thought that the most that would ever be agreed for the plane was US$110 million and that it would be very difficult for me to achieve more than this; consequently he offered such sum as I could obtain in excess of this as a way of incentivising me to get the full US$110 million for him. I asked for written confirmation of the commission but the Prince insisted that his word should be enough and I did not press the matter as I had not had problems with receiving commission from the Prince previously and Mr Alaeddin had also assured me that the payment would be made when we had met in London."
Mr Baker does not comment in terms on the alleged circumstances of the variation. However, it is the Prince's position that he was not party to any relevant contract with Mrs Sharab.
The July 2003 telephone conversation
The August 2003 telephone conversation
Involvement in negotiations
THE EXPERT EVIDENCE
Jurisdiction based on contract
Sum claimed/Damages
Quantum meruit
Procedures
Female claimant
Interest
Enforcement of a Libyan judgment abroad
Libyan courts
THE LAW
General
a. as to types of claim listed under CPR 6.20, there is a good arguable case that the claim falls within one or more of them;
b. as to the intrinsic merits of each cause of action, there is a reasonable prospect of success;
c. as to the appropriate forum for the trial of her claim, it is clearly England and Wales.
d. as to the court's general discretion, it should exercise it in favour of serving the claim form out of the jurisdiction.
Essentially discretionary nature of jurisdiction
RELEVANT CLAIM TYPES
Mrs Sharab's case
The "good arguable case" criterion
CLAIM TYPE (1): CONTRACT MADE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION - CPR 6.20(5)(a)
The law
Conclusion
CLAIM TYPE (2): CONTRACT MADE BY AGENT TRADING WITHIN THE JURISDICTION - CPR 6.20(5)(b)
The law
Conclusion
CLAIM TYPE (3): CONTRACT GOVERNED BY ENGLISH LAW - CPR 6.20(5)(c)
The law
Conclusion
CLAIM TYPE (4): BREACH OF CONTRACT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION - CPR 6.20(6))
The law
Conclusion
INTRINSIC MERITS: "REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SUCCESS"
The law
Conclusion
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AS TO CLAIM TYPE
APPROPRIATE FORUM
The law
The rival submissions
Conclusion as to forum
General
John L. Powell QC
31.07.08