Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Albluewi (aka Sheikh Salah Hamdan Albluewi And Mr Salah Hamdan Albelwi)

Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Albluewi (aka Sheikh Salah Hamdan Albluewi And Mr Salah Hamdan Albelwi)

The Claimant failed to establish by solid evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendant. The Defendant had substantial assets in Jersey and strong connections to the UK, with no evidence of dissipation during the relevant period. The Claimant also committed material non-disclosure by failing to inform the court of the Defendant's prior defaults and the true extent of his UK property interests, which were directly relevant to the risk of dissipation. These failures justified discharge of the WFO, and there was no basis for regranting it.

Parties
Claimant: Les Ambassadeurs Club Limited; Defendant: Salah Hamdan Albluewi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Inter Partes Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo)
Outcome
Claimant's application to continue the WFO dismissed; Defendant's application to discharge the WFO allowed.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Full and Frank Disclosure, Enforcement of Judgments, Gambling Debts, Asset Dissipation
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Injunctions Full and Frank Disclosure Enforcement of Judgments Gambling Debts Asset Dissipation

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

Parties

Les Ambassadeurs Club Limited

Claimant

Salah Hamdan Albluewi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Inter Partes Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of a worldwide freezing order (WFO)
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure on the without notice application for the WFO
  3. 3 Whether it is just and convenient to continue the WFO

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to establish by solid evidence a real risk of dissipation of assets by the Defendant. The Defendant had substantial assets in Jersey and strong connections to the UK, with no evidence of dissipation during the relevant period. The Claimant also committed material non-disclosure by failing to inform the court of the Defendant's prior defaults and the true extent of his UK property interests, which were directly relevant to the risk of dissipation. These failures justified discharge of the WFO, and there was no basis for regranting it.

Court Disposition

Claimant's application to continue the WFO dismissed; Defendant's application to discharge the WFO allowed.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing order discharged; no regrant of injunction.