Sheikh Abdulrahman Khalid Bin Mahfouz v Sheikh Sultan Bin Mahfouz & Anor [2016] EWHC 1380 (Comm) (25 May 2016)

Sheikh Abdulrahman Khalid Bin Mahfouz v Sheikh Sultan Bin Mahfouz & Anor [2016] EWHC 1380 (Comm) (25 May 2016)

The defence that the €35 million was a gift is wholly incredible, inconsistent with documentary evidence, prior representations, and conduct; the defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim, entitling the claimants to summary judgment for repayment.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1380 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Sheikh Abdulrahman Khalid bin Mahfouz; Claimant: Sheikh Sultan bin Mahfouz; Claimant: Eman bin Mahfouz; Claimant: Naela bint Abdulaziz Mohammed Kaki; Claimant: The Arab Asian International Holding Company (Closed); Defendant: Muhaned Farid Mahmoud El Rashid; Defendant: The Noble Holdings Group Corp (BVI)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Repayment of Money / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Misappropriation of Funds, Breach of Trust, Personal Guarantee, Repayment of Deposit
Commercial Law Trusts Law Contract Law Summary Judgment Misappropriation of Funds Breach of Trust Personal Guarantee Repayment of Deposit

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Abdulrahman Khalid bin Mahfouz

Claimant

Sheikh Sultan bin Mahfouz

Claimant

Eman bin Mahfouz

Claimant

Naela bint Abdulaziz Mohammed Kaki

Claimant

The Arab Asian International Holding Company (Closed)

Claimant

Muhaned Farid Mahmoud El Rashid

Defendant

The Noble Holdings Group Corp (BVI)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Repayment of Money / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the €35 million was a repayable deposit or a gift
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have a real prospect of defending the claim
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The defence that the €35 million was a gift is wholly incredible, inconsistent with documentary evidence, prior representations, and conduct; the defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim, entitling the claimants to summary judgment for repayment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Judgment for €35 million plus interest in favour of the claimants