Asturion Fondation v Alibrahim

Asturion Fondation v Alibrahim

The appeal was allowed. The judge held that the claimant's decision to pause proceedings pending the outcome of related litigation in Liechtenstein, which directly challenged the claimant's authority to pursue the English claim, did not amount to an abuse of process. The delay was not inordinate or unjustified, and the circumstances did not meet the threshold for striking out. The lower court erred in law in treating the claimant's conduct as abusive and in exercising its discretion to strike out the claim.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Asturion Fondation; Defendant/respondent: Aljawharah Bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alibrahim
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order striking out the claim set aside.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Striking Out, Warehousing Proceedings, Security for Costs, Pending Land Action, Authority of Board Members, Void or Voidable Transfers
Civil Procedure Property Law Abuse of Process Striking Out Warehousing Proceedings Security for Costs Pending Land Action Authority of Board Members +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asturion Fondation

Claimant/appellant

Aljawharah Bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alibrahim

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's conduct amounted to 'warehousing' and thus an abuse of process justifying striking out the claim
  2. 2 Whether the delay in progressing the litigation was justified or abusive
  3. 3 Whether the court below erred in law or discretion in striking out the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed. The judge held that the claimant's decision to pause proceedings pending the outcome of related litigation in Liechtenstein, which directly challenged the claimant's authority to pursue the English claim, did not amount to an abuse of process. The delay was not inordinate or unjustified, and the circumstances did not meet the threshold for striking out. The lower court erred in law in treating the claimant's conduct as abusive and in exercising its discretion to strike out the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order striking out the claim set aside.

Orders

  • The claim is reinstated.
  • The order of Deputy Master Cousins striking out the claim is set aside.