Al Jaber & Anor v Al Ibrahim & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1690 (18 July 2018)

Al Jaber & Anor v Al Ibrahim & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1690 (18 July 2018)

The Judge erred in treating the interest claim as separate from the principal for jurisdictional purposes; however, there is no serious issue to be tried regarding the implication of a term for interest on the loan prior to demand, as the evidence does not support such an implication under established legal principles.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 1690
Parties
Appellant (claimant): Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber; Appellant (claimant): MBI & Partners UK Limited; Respondent (defendant): Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim; Respondent (defendant): Sheikh Majid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order on Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; claim for interest not permitted to proceed as there is no serious issue to be tried on the implied term.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Interest on Loans, Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Contract Law Private International Law Implied Terms Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Interest on Loans Breach of Contract

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 3 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

Appellant (claimant)

MBI & Partners UK Limited

Appellant (claimant)

Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim

Respondent (defendant)

Sheikh Majid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order on Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for interest on an oral loan agreement can be served out of jurisdiction as an accessory to the principal claim
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding the implication of a term for interest in an oral loan agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge erred in treating the interest claim as separate from the principal for jurisdictional purposes; however, there is no serious issue to be tried regarding the implication of a term for interest on the loan prior to demand, as the evidence does not support such an implication under established legal principles.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; claim for interest not permitted to proceed as there is no serious issue to be tried on the implied term.

Orders

  • Order to reflect that the Judge erred in bifurcating the claims for principal and interest for jurisdictional purposes.
  • No permission to serve out of jurisdiction in respect of the claim for interest based on an implied term.