HRH Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud & Anor. v Ronald William Gibbs & Anor.

HRH Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud & Anor. v Ronald William Gibbs & Anor.

The 25 April letter, signed by the second claimant, triggered the settlement agreement's machinery under clause 1.3, obliging the first defendant to liquidate the portfolio and transfer proceeds to the designated account. The first defendant breached the agreement by failing to do so. The designated account did not need to be in the second claimant's name; clear contractual language prevails over recitals and pre-contractual negotiations.

Parties
Claimant: HRH Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Claimant: HRH Princess Deema Bint Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Respondent: Ronald William Gibbs; Respondent: Sunnydale Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Summary Judgment Application and Interim Payment
Outcome
Judgment for the second claimant on the alternative claim; damages to be assessed; interim payment ordered; primary claims provisionally stayed pending further submissions.
Legal Topics
Breach of Settlement Agreement, Summary Judgment, Interim Payment, Construction of Contract, Liquidation of Investment Portfolio
Contract Law Trust Law Breach of Settlement Agreement Summary Judgment Interim Payment Construction of Contract Liquidation of Investment Portfolio

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HRH Prince Khaled Bin Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Claimant

HRH Princess Deema Bint Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Claimant

Ronald William Gibbs

Respondent

Sunnydale Services Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Summary Judgment Application and Interim Payment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement's machinery was triggered by the 25 April letter
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to liquidate assets and transfer proceeds
  3. 3 Proper construction of clause 1.3 regarding designated account

Ratio Decidendi

The 25 April letter, signed by the second claimant, triggered the settlement agreement's machinery under clause 1.3, obliging the first defendant to liquidate the portfolio and transfer proceeds to the designated account. The first defendant breached the agreement by failing to do so. The designated account did not need to be in the second claimant's name; clear contractual language prevails over recitals and pre-contractual negotiations.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the second claimant on the alternative claim; damages to be assessed; interim payment ordered; primary claims provisionally stayed pending further submissions.

Orders

  • Interim payment to the second claimant calculated as follows: $826,117 (cash), £328,750 (Park Road property), $250,000 (futures contracts), $1,000,000 (Credit Suisse managed securities), £1,500 (publicly quoted shares).
  • Directions to be given for assessment of damages.