Al Saud v Ayas & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 988 (25 July 2002)

Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 988 A3/2002/0781/2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (MR JUSTICE TOULSON) Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Tuesday 25 July 2002 B e f o r e : THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS (LORD PHILLIPS) LORD JUSTICE MAY LORD JUSTICE LAWS ____________________ HRH PRINCE MOHAMAD BIN FAHAD ABDULAZZIZ AL SAUD Claimant/Respondent - v - 1. SAID MOHAMAD AYAS 2. DANIELE MARIE AYAS 3. MAY ANNE AYAS 4. RIMA AYAS 5. NOUR AYAS Defendants/Appellants ____________________ (Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG Tel: 0207 421 4040 Fax: 0207 831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) ____________________ The Appellants did not attend and were not represented. MR NICHOLAS STADLEN QC and MISS PATRICIA ROBERTSON (Instructed by Messrs Freshfields Braukhaus Derringer, London, EC4Y 1HS) appeared on behalf of the Respondent ____________________ HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________ Crown Copyright © LORD PHILLIPS, MR: The court has come prepared to hear an appeal which could be brought as of right, and applications for permission to appeal which relate to orders made by Toulson J on 28 March 2002 in contempt proceedings. Both the court and Messrs Freshfields, who appear for the respondents, have received communications from a Dr Asso in Nice, on behalf of the appellant and the applicants, requesting that this matter be adjourned. No valid reason is given as to why the appellant and the applicants are not ready to proceed today. It is said that they are without funds. But, if an application for an adjournment were to be pursued, it seems to us that there is no reason why somebody should not attend to make it. This matter has a long history of devious behaviour (to put it mildly) by the first two appellants, who have lost no opportunity for seeking to procrastinate and to avoid the due process of the court. I can see no possible justification for adjourning the appeal or the applications today. I would refuse the written application for an adjournment. I turn to the consequence of dismissing the application for an adjournment. Grounds of appeal and a skeleton in support have been filed. We have discussed those grounds. On the face of it, we have been unable to identify any ground which appears to have validity. In the absence of anyone to explain more fully the basis upon which the appeal or the applications are brought, the inevitable result of refusing the adjournment is that the applications and appeal must be dismissed. We now turn to deal with the respondent's cross appeal, which seeks an increase in the fine of £150,000 that Toulson J imposed on the first defendant for his continuing contempt of court. In earlier contempt proceedings a fine of £250,000 was imposed, together with a rolling fine of £2,500 per day so long as the contempt continues. Mr Stadlen has submitted that Mr Ayas is playing a calculated game, defying the court for as long as he considers it profitable to do so. He says that, in these circumstances, the additional fine of £150,000 imposed by Toulson J is manifestly inadequate and ought to be increased so that in the reasonably near future the totality of the fines imposed will be such as to enable enforcement to be made against properties owned by Mr Ayas in this jurisdiction, which are at present, when the terms of a consent order, inviolate to execution. It seems to us that if this application is to succeed, we must be persuaded that the exercise of discretion by Toulson J was wrong in principle. We are not persuaded of that. It seems to us that if a remedy is to be sought for the continuing conduct of the defendants, it is a remedy that should be sought at first instance. The cross-appeal will be dismissed. LORD JUSTICE MAY: I agree. LORD JUSTICE LAWS: I also agree. Order: Defendants' application for an adjournment of the hearing refused. 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants' applications for permission to appeal be refused. Defendants' application for adjournment refused. 3rd Defendants' appeal be dismissed and order of Toulson J dated 28 March 2002 be affirmed. Extension of time for filing the Respondent's Notice and Skeleton Argument be allowed. Claimant's cross appeal be dismissed. Claimant's application to adduce the fourth affidavit of Jehan-Philippe Wood sworn on 15 April 2002 and first affidavit of Sarah Anne Innes Parkes sworn on 17 June 2002 (Additional Evidence) on the hearing of the appeal be allowed. Claimant's costs of applications and the appeal and attendance at this hearing be paid by the Defendants on an indemnity basis and the claimant be permitted to enforce the same against the Defendants' properties at Hyde Park Gate, London (namely, Flats 5 and 12, 50 Hyde Park Gate and the net sale proceeds of the Flat 10 which are presently held in Court). Under CPR Part 6.8(1) the claimant be permitted to effect service of this Order and the additional evidence on the 1st to 5th defendants by serving the same on Maitre Asso, Avocat for the 1st to 5th defendants, of 31 Boulevard Victor Hugo, 0600 Nice, France and at Flats 5 and 12, 40 Hyde Park Gate, London, SW7. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII