Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL

Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL

Specific disclosure is exceptional in jurisdiction disputes but is justified where there is significant information asymmetry and the documents are necessary and proportionate for the fair disposal of the jurisdiction application. Here, the claimant has a prima facie case for jurisdiction based on public material regarding Crossbridge Capital and the London Desk, and the defendant alone holds key documents. Disclosure is ordered in relation to those issues and certain onboarding and contractual documents, but not for broad marketing or board materials amounting to a fishing expedition.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi; Defendant/respondent: Bank Audi S. A. L.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (banking/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Pending Jurisdiction Challenge
Outcome
Application for specific disclosure granted in part, refused in part.
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Challenge, Disclosure in Jurisdiction Disputes, Consumer Contract Gateway, Information Asymmetry, Specific Disclosure Under CPR 31.12, Inspection Under CPR 31.14
Civil Procedure Banking Law Private International Law Jurisdictional Challenge Disclosure in Jurisdiction Disputes Consumer Contract Gateway Information Asymmetry Specific Disclosure Under CPR 31.12 +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 4 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi

Claimant/applicant

Bank Audi S. A. L.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (banking/contract) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Pending Jurisdiction Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should order disclosure against a foreign defendant in the context of a disputed jurisdiction application under CPR Part 11
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has shown exceptional circumstances justifying disclosure before jurisdiction is established
  3. 3 Whether the documents sought are proportionate and necessary for the fair disposal of the jurisdiction application

Ratio Decidendi

Specific disclosure is exceptional in jurisdiction disputes but is justified where there is significant information asymmetry and the documents are necessary and proportionate for the fair disposal of the jurisdiction application. Here, the claimant has a prima facie case for jurisdiction based on public material regarding Crossbridge Capital and the London Desk, and the defendant alone holds key documents. Disclosure is ordered in relation to those issues and certain onboarding and contractual documents, but not for broad marketing or board materials amounting to a fishing expedition.

Court Disposition

Application for specific disclosure granted in part, refused in part.

Orders

  • Disclosure ordered of documents relating to Crossbridge Capital (2014-2020), the London Desk (with scope and date range to be determined), onboarding documentation for UK-resident customers in specified years, job descriptions of two named employees, standard terms and conditions as at 24 December 2020, and certain...
  • Disclosure refused for broad marketing policies, marketing committee minutes, and board/committee minutes as disproportionate or speculative.