High Court dismisses application to set aside alternative service order against Sheikh Al Jaber

A Deputy Master in the Business and Property Courts has dismissed an application by Sheikh Mohamed bin Issa Al Jaber to set aside an order permitting the joint liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc to serve possession proceedings on him by email to his solicitors, rather than through the formal channels of the Hague Service Convention.

The judgement, handed down by Deputy Master Holden on 29 July 2026, concerns enforcement of a €67,123,403.36 judgement obtained against Sheikh Al Jaber following a trial before Joanna Smith J. That judgement, briefly set aside by the Court of Appeal, was reinstated by the Supreme Court in November 2025. The liquidators subsequently obtained a final charging order over the Sheikh's London property at 2 Winnington Road, securing €83,277,156.10 including accrued interest, and issued a Part 8 claim seeking possession and sale.

Before issuing proceedings, the claimants' solicitors, Clyde & Co, attempted to notify the Sheikh by tracked post to his address in Paris. The letter was never collected despite a delivery notice being left by La Poste. Separately, Kingsley Wood, solicitors who had acted for the Sheikh in the earlier substantive claim, confirmed they were instructed but not authorised to accept service of the new proceedings.

Faced with this position, the claimants applied for and obtained permission from Deputy Master Linwood to serve out of the jurisdiction and, alternatively, by email to Kingsley Wood. The Sheikh challenged that order, arguing through solicitor Zahy Deen that the claimants needed to show "exceptional circumstances" given France's status as a Hague Convention signatory, and that they had breached their duty of full and frank disclosure.

By the time of written submissions, however, counsel for the Sheikh, Adrian Carr, had abandoned the exceptional circumstances argument, accepting instead that France's non-objection to Article 10(a) of the Convention meant the applicable test was simply whether "good reason" existed for alternative service. Mr Carr argued no such good reason had been shown, pointing to the absence of urgency, the claimants' failure to attempt Convention service first, and Kingsley Wood's clear refusal of authority to accept service.

Counsel for the claimants, Niall McCulloch KC, submitted that the proceedings were, in substance, an enforcement matter following years of litigation, that service via Kingsley Wood was more likely to reach the Sheikh than post to Paris, and that the failed delivery combined with the solicitors' refusal suggested a tactical attempt to delay matters.

Deputy Master Holden agreed with the claimants on all counts. He found good reason for alternative service, noting that the Sheikh was already fully aware of the underlying judgement and proceedings through his solicitors, that his unexplained failure to collect the Paris letter raised a real possibility of deliberate evasion, and that service via Kingsley Wood represented the more effective route regardless of the reason behind the failed delivery. He rejected the suggestion that the Second Defendant's separate appeal against the charging order bore any relevance to the application, and found no breach of the claimants' disclosure obligations.

The application to set aside the alternative service order was accordingly dismissed, with the claim now proceeding on the basis of valid service.