Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber v Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim & Anor

Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber v Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim & Anor

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the US$30 million payment was a loan. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents, inherent probabilities, and witness testimony, supported the Defendants’ account that the payment was an advisory fee to Sheikh Majid for services rendered in connection with the Jadawel refinancing and Prince Abdulaziz’s exit. The claimant’s case was undermined by inconsistencies, lack of documentary support, and unreliable evidence regarding the transfer instructions. Even if a loan agreement had been established, it would not have bound Sheikh Walid, and under Saudi law, the claim would not have been time-barred nor invalid for lack...

Parties
Claimant: Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber; First Defendant: Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim; Second Defendant: Sheikh Majid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (loan Agreement Dispute) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Loan Agreements, Oral Contracts, Agency, Applicable Law, Limitation, Evidentiary Standards, Saudi Law, Forgery Allegations
Contract Law Commercial Law Private International Law Loan Agreements Oral Contracts Agency Applicable Law Limitation +3 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber

Claimant

Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim

First Defendant

Sheikh Majid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (loan Agreement Dispute) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the US$30 million payment was a loan or an advisory fee
  2. 2 Whether an oral loan agreement is enforceable under Saudi law
  3. 3 Whether the claim is time-barred under Saudi law

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the US$30 million payment was a loan. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents, inherent probabilities, and witness testimony, supported the Defendants’ account that the payment was an advisory fee to Sheikh Majid for services rendered in connection with the Jadawel refinancing and Prince Abdulaziz’s exit. The claimant’s case was undermined by inconsistencies, lack of documentary support, and unreliable evidence regarding the transfer instructions. Even if a loan agreement had been established, it would not have bound Sheikh Walid, and under Saudi law, the claim would not have been time-barred nor invalid for lack...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant’s claim is dismissed in full
  • No order for repayment of US$30 million