Court rules on prince's bankruptcy case

In a pivotal judgement delivered on 30 May 2025, the Court of Appeal in Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud focused on major jurisdictional issues related to a bankruptcy petition against a member of the Saudi royal family. The Court meticulously examined whether the legal framework in England allowed for this case, specifically looking into the prince’s residency status and connections under the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Appellant, Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP, represented by a distinguished legal team led by Stephen Moverley Smith KC, contested a previous decision from Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs, who dismissed their bankruptcy petition citing residency issues. The original claim, filed over two years prior, alleged that Prince Hussam owed a debt exceeding $800 million as determined by an arbitration body. The core of the dispute rested on establishing whether the prince maintained residence in England and Wales during the critical three-year period preceding the bankruptcy petition.

Under section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986, a bankruptcy petition may proceed if a debtor's centre of main interests (COMI) is located within England and Wales, or they possess a place of residence within that jurisdiction. In her ruling, Judge Briggs concluded that the Appellant had not sufficiently proved that the prince had a residence in England and Wales during the relevant time.

The Court of Appeal's judgement delved deeply into what constitutes a "place of residence." The essential question was whether Prince Hussam retained genuine ties to York House, a London property owned by his mother that he had historically utilised during his education. An analysis of the evidence revealed that while he had lived there as a student, his ties greatly waned post-1990 when he established permanent residence in Saudi Arabia.

Significantly, the judges determined that the Prince had not occupied York House at any point during the three-year period under review, a critical factor leading to the court’s conclusions about his domicile. The ruling underscored that although the prince had past connections to the property, his lifestyle — characterised by responsibilities in Saudi Arabia and minimal visits to London — demonstrated a lack of intention to maintain residency in England.

Moreover, the Court dismissed arguments from the defence regarding council tax registrations and informal accessibility to family properties, deeming these insufficient to establish the necessary jurisdiction under the Insolvency Act. The judgement reinforced the legal standards regarding what constitutes meaningful residency, asserting that substantive presence and intent are paramount over mere ties to properties.

With this ruling, permission to appeal was denied, effectively endorsing the earlier High Court decision and clarifying significant precedents in UK bankruptcy law. This case stands as a crucial reference for cases involving complex jurisdictional questions, particularly those relating to international law and royal interests, illustrating that residency must be supported by actual presence and ongoing intentions to reside within the jurisdiction