Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL [2025] EWHC 919 (KB) (15 April 2025)

Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL [2025] EWHC 919 (KB) (15 April 2025)

The defendant (Bank Audi) was the successful party on appeal, having overturned most of the disclosure orders below, and is awarded 65% of its appeal costs, subject to detailed assessment. The Armstrong order below is varied so the claimant receives 70% of his costs below. Payments are to be made directly, not via escrow or account offset. Payment on account of appeal costs is set at 70% of the costs awarded. Costs of the extension of time and consequentials hearing are to be costs in the jurisdiction application.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 919 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi; Defendant/appellant: Bank Audi S. A. L.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Judgment Following Substantive Appeal) / Post Appeal, Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders varied and made as per judgment; Armstrong order varied to 70% of claimant's costs below; defendant awarded 65% of appeal costs; payments to be made directly; payment on account of 70% of appeal costs; other costs as specified.
Legal Topics
Costs, Jurisdiction Challenge, Disclosure, Consumer Contracts, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Civil Procedure Banking Law Private International Law Costs Jurisdiction Challenge Disclosure Consumer Contracts Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi

Claimant/respondent

Bank Audi S. A. L.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Judgment Following Substantive Appeal) / Post Appeal, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order below (Armstrong order) should be set aside or varied
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should repay sums paid on account of costs
  3. 3 Which party succeeded on appeal and the appropriate percentage of costs to award

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant (Bank Audi) was the successful party on appeal, having overturned most of the disclosure orders below, and is awarded 65% of its appeal costs, subject to detailed assessment. The Armstrong order below is varied so the claimant receives 70% of his costs below. Payments are to be made directly, not via escrow or account offset. Payment on account of appeal costs is set at 70% of the costs awarded. Costs of the extension of time and consequentials hearing are to be costs in the jurisdiction application.

Court Disposition

Costs orders varied and made as per judgment; Armstrong order varied to 70% of claimant's costs below; defendant awarded 65% of appeal costs; payments to be made directly; payment on account of 70% of appeal costs; other costs as specified.

Orders

  • Armstrong order varied: claimant awarded 70% of costs below
  • Repayment of sums paid on account to be adjusted per 30% reduction, with interest at 1% above base rate if applicable