Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid & Ors v Al-Hezaimi & Ors

Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid & Ors v Al-Hezaimi & Ors

The defendants’ undertaking in the Consent Order extends to rental income from the secured properties because the language 'right, title, and interest' is sufficiently broad to include the right to receive rent, and there is no express exclusion. The protocol for rental income, previously agreed, remains in effect and the defendants may only deal with rental income with the claimants’ written consent. There is no need to imply a duty of good faith in the provision of consent, as the undertakings are to the court and unreasonable refusal can be addressed by the court.

Parties
Claimant: Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid; Claimant: OH-NA Real Estate Company Limited; Claimant: TAQA Investment Company; Defendant: Khalid Abdullah Al-Hezaimi; Defendant: OFY Limited; Defendant: Latifah Assets Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Declarations And/or Injunction Regarding Interpretation of Consent Order
Outcome
Defendants’ application dismissed; declaration granted in favour of claimants.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Injunction, Freezing Order, Interpretation of Consent Orders, Security for Claims, Rental Income as Security, Undertakings to Court
Civil Procedure Property Law Equity Proprietary Injunction Freezing Order Interpretation of Consent Orders Security for Claims Rental Income as Security +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid

Claimant

OH-NA Real Estate Company Limited

Claimant

TAQA Investment Company

Claimant

Khalid Abdullah Al-Hezaimi

Defendant

OFY Limited

Defendant

Latifah Assets Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Declarations And/or Injunction Regarding Interpretation of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants’ undertaking in the Consent Order extends to rental income from the secured properties
  2. 2 Whether the claimants’ consent to dealings with the security is subject to a duty of good faith or can be arbitrarily withheld
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to a further injunction over rental income if not covered by the undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants’ undertaking in the Consent Order extends to rental income from the secured properties because the language 'right, title, and interest' is sufficiently broad to include the right to receive rent, and there is no express exclusion. The protocol for rental income, previously agreed, remains in effect and the defendants may only deal with rental income with the claimants’ written consent. There is no need to imply a duty of good faith in the provision of consent, as the undertakings are to the court and unreasonable refusal can be addressed by the court.

Court Disposition

Defendants’ application dismissed; declaration granted in favour of claimants.

Orders

  • Declaration that the defendants’ undertaking in the Consent Order extends to rental income; defendants may only deal with rental income in accordance with the rental protocol or with claimants’ written consent.
  • Defendants to provide a written statement of the application of rental income after 18 October 2017 by a specified date.