Al-Aggad v Al-Aggad & Ors [2024] EWHC 673 (Comm) (22 March 2024)

Al-Aggad v Al-Aggad & Ors [2024] EWHC 673 (Comm) (22 March 2024)

The court held that Saudi Arabia is the natural and more appropriate forum for the dispute under Stage 1 of Spiliada. However, at Stage 2, the claimant demonstrated by cogent evidence that she would face insurmountable procedural barriers to commencing and participating in proceedings in Saudi Arabia due to her lack of a Saudi National ID card and inability to legalise a power of attorney, making substantial justice unavailable to her there. The court therefore refused to stay the proceedings or set aside service on the defendants.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 673 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Rana Al-Aggad; First Defendant: Talal Al-Aggad; Second Defendant: Tarek Al-Aggad; Third Defendant: Lama Al-Aggad
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (breach of Contract and Conspiracy) / Jurisdiction Challenge (forum Non Conveniens)
Outcome
Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Forum Non Conveniens, Jurisdictional Challenge, Breach of Contract, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Recognition of Foreign Judgments, Substantial Justice Principle
Private International Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdictional Challenge Breach of Contract Unlawful Means Conspiracy +2 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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rana Al-Aggad

Claimant

Talal Al-Aggad

First Defendant

Tarek Al-Aggad

Second Defendant

Lama Al-Aggad

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (breach of Contract and Conspiracy) / Jurisdiction Challenge (forum Non Conveniens)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether England is the appropriate forum for the dispute under the Spiliada test
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk that the claimant cannot obtain substantial justice in Saudi Arabia
  3. 3 Whether the claimant can commence and participate in proceedings in Saudi Arabia given her personal circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Saudi Arabia is the natural and more appropriate forum for the dispute under Stage 1 of Spiliada. However, at Stage 2, the claimant demonstrated by cogent evidence that she would face insurmountable procedural barriers to commencing and participating in proceedings in Saudi Arabia due to her lack of a Saudi National ID card and inability to legalise a power of attorney, making substantial justice unavailable to her there. The court therefore refused to stay the proceedings or set aside service on the defendants.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction challenge dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Refusal to stay proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds
  • Refusal to set aside service on the defendants