The former Prime Minister of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani (“Sheikh Hamad”), and Forbes House Limited (“FHL”) have successfully applied to set aside permission to serve proceedings on them out of the jurisdiction, and for alternative service on Sheikh Hamad. The claim was brought by Hume Street Management Consultants (“HSMC”), a vehicle for luxury hotelier Paddy McKillen, claiming alleged unpaid fees of £8.25 million in relation to the redevelopment of Forbes House, a Grade II residential property in Belgravia.
On 27 September 2024, HSMC sought and obtained permission on an ex parte basis from Mr Justice Pepperall to serve its claim out of the jurisdiction on Sheikh Hamad and FHL and for alternative service on Sheikh Hamad by WhatsApp and by post to an address in London associated with Lomakx. HSMC relied on the contract, unjust enrichment and necessary or proper gateways in para 3.1 of PD6B.
By an application dated 8 October 2024, Sheikh Hamad and FHL sought to set aside service of the proceedings on them and the permission granted to HSMC to serve its claims out of the jurisdiction and by alternative means on Sheik Hamad.
In a judgment handed down on 26 February 2025, Adrian Williamson KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) accepted the Defendants’ submissions and set aside service on Sheikh Hamad and FHL. He found that HSMC failed “to show that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim, i.e. that there is a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of success on the claim” [18], including because it had not properly pleaded an oral contract or contract made by conduct [19], its claim was “incoherent” and changed “with every iteration and without explanation” [20], it had identified no basis for saying that HSMC was a party to any contract (as opposed to Mr McKillen) [21], and its case consisted of asserted legal conclusions without any explanation of the basis for these [22]. Similarly, as regards the unjust enrichment claim, the Judge found HSMC had not advanced a case with “any coherence or conviction” that any enrichment received by the Defendants was at HSMC’s expense or conferred on the basis of a joint understanding between HSMC and any of the Defendants [25]-[26].
As for alternative service, the Judge found that the reasons identified by HSMC for making such an order were not “good reasons” to “depart from conventional methods of service” [32]. In particular, HSMC relied principally on the delay that would be caused by serving Sheikh Hamad in Qatar and what would be more efficient and pragmatic for the litigation, but the evidence was that the delay in Qatar was “usual” and the reasons given would mean alternative service “would be granted for all Qatari litigation (and no doubt much other litigation)” [32].
The Defendants were represented by Sebastian Isaac KC and Andrew Lodder, instructed by Macfarlanes LLP.
View Judgment