Hamad Al Haroun v Ahmad Al Fahad Al Ahmad Al Sabah & Ors [2026] EWHC 1669 (KB)

[2026] EWHC 1669 (KB)Case No QB-2018-003738Case No KB-2023-003518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LLDate 8 July 2026
Before
DAVID QUEST KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Between
HAMAD AL HAROUNClaimantAHMAD AL FAHAD AL AHMAD AL SABAHDefendantKUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE PLCThird PartyHAMAD AL HAROUNClaimantKUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE PLCDefendantformerly known asDefendantAHLI UNITED BANK (UK) PLCDefendant
Nathan Pillow KC and Stephen Donnelly (instructed by Jones Day)for Kuwait Finance House plcClive Wolman (instructed by direct access) for Hamad Al HarounHearing Hearing dates: 4, 5, 6 March 2026
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on 8 July 2026 by circulation to the parties’ representatives by e-mail and release to the National Archives

DAVID QUEST KC:

[1]This is my judgment on two applications by Kuwait Finance House plc (KFH), formerly known as Ahli United Bank (UK) plc. KFH is a bank incorporated in England with offices at 35 Portman Square, London. The respondent is Mr Hamad Al Haroun. Mr Al Haroun is a Kuwaiti citizen who left Kuwait in 2014 and was subsequently granted political asylum in the UK. He is a customer of KFH.[2]Mr Al Haroun is the claimant in two relevant sets of proceedings. The first set (the 2018 proceedings) were issued on 28 June 2018 against Mr Ahmad Al Fahad Al Ahmad Al Sabah. Mr Al Haroun’s case was that he had advanced money to Mr Al Sabah in connection with a joint venture between them, but the advance was not repaid. Mr Al Sabah did not file an acknowledgment of service and, on 11 October 2018, judgment in default was entered in favour of Mr Al Haroun in the amount of £5,847,376.[3]On 20 February 2023, Mr Al Haroun obtained an interim third-party debt order (TPD order) against KFH in the 2018 proceedings. The order was one of four obtained by Mr Al Haroun against different banks by way of enforcement of his judgment against Mr Al Sabah. They were obtained with the assistance of H&C Associates (H&C), who are a firm of legal services providers, although not solicitors and not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.[4]In the circumstances described below, KFH did not respond to the interim TPD order. Thereafter, Mr Al Haroun applied for and obtained a series of further orders against KFH, including an order of Master Cook dated 30 March 2023 and an order of Linden J dated 25 May 2023. KFH did not respond to any of those orders either. On 27 July 2023, at a hearing in the absence of KFH, Mr ter Haar KC (sitting as a deputy judge) made an order declaring KFH to be in contempt of court by reason of its breaches of the orders of Master Cook and Linden J and fining it £100,000 (the contempt order).[5]On 13 September 2023, Mr Al Haroun issued further proceedings against KFH (the 2023 proceedings). His case in those proceedings is that KFH conspired with Mr Al Sabah to disobey court orders so as to frustrate his attempts to enforce his judgment debt. He alleges that the ultimate majority owner and controller of KFH is the Kuwaiti ruling family and government, of which (he says) Mr Al Sabah is a prominent member, and that there was a common design between KFH and Mr Al Sabah to prevent Mr Al Haroun enforcing against Mr Al Sabah’s accounts at KFH. KFH did not file an acknowledgment of service in the 2023 proceedings and, on 7 November 2023, the court entered judgment in default in the amount of £8,215,783, including interest and costs.[6]KFH accepts that it was served with the interim TPD order but says that it was not served with any of the subsequent applications or orders in the 2018 proceedings. It says that it was unaware of the contempt proceedings until 14 September 2023, when it received an email from the court enquiring about payment of the fine. It immediately instructed solicitors and, on 20 September 2023, issued an application to set aside or revoke the contempt order and the orders leading up to it. On 3 November 2023, it issued a further, superseding, application, by which it also sought a dismissal of the TPD order and the contempt proceedings.[7]KFH says that it was also not served with the claim form or particulars of claim in the 2023 proceedings, and only became aware of them when it received the default judgment by post on 10 November 2023. On 17 November 2023, it issued an application to set that default judgment aside.[8]KFH’s case, as developed in its written and oral arguments, is that Mr Al Haroun obtained the contempt order and the default judgment by fraud. It alleges that he deliberately did not serve the relevant documents and that the evidence of service that he relies on, including the evidence that he filed with the court at the time, has been concocted as part of a scheme to obtain orders against KFH without its knowledge and without it having an opportunity to be heard by the court.[9]KFH’s applications came before Foster J on 29 November 2023, together with an application by Mr Al Haroun for an order for cross-examination of the parties’ witnesses under CPR 32.7. Foster J adjourned KFH’s applications and granted the order for cross-examination. She said in her judgment that cross-examination was unavoidable:
“53 …In the present case, it is impossible for both the evidence of the Claimant and that of the Bank to be correct. Furthermore, as to certain of the central matters, whether the certificates of service are genuine, for example, whether an attempt at personal service was in fact properly made or not, whether in truth the Claimant had legal representatives at certain relevant points in the correspondence with the Bank, as he contends, or not, cannot be determined on written evidence alone. There can be, in my judgment, no answer to the application for cross-examination. It is impossible for the court to determine the matters without one.”
She directed that cross-examination was to be limited to the issue of service and was not to extend to the question of whether Mr Al Sabah had a bank account with KFH.[10]There was then a hiatus in the proceedings until 23 May 2025 when Master Gidden gave directions. He ordered a hearing of two issues: i) whether (and if so to what extent) KFH was properly served with the documents that Mr Al Haroun claimed to have served in respect of the TPD order application and the contempt application; ii) if so, whether (and if so to what extent) such documents came to the attention of an individual in a senior position within KFH. He directed that KFH’s applications to set aside the contempt order and the default judgment should be determined in the light of the court’s findings on those issues. He gave further detailed directions up to and including the hearing, including an order for documentary disclosure by the parties. He specified the witness statements and affidavits (or parts thereof) on which the parties were permitted to rely and directed that certain witnesses should give oral evidence. He gave the parties liberty to apply for permission to adduce expert evidence.[11]On 9 January 2026, KFH issued a further application, this time to strike out the 2023 proceedings, alternatively for summary judgment, on the ground that Mr Al Sabah never had an account with KFH so that any failure to respond to the TPD order could not have caused Mr Al Haroun any loss. In support of its application, KFH served an expert report of Mr Alfie Payne addressing the content of KFH’s electronic account records. Mr Al Haroun served factual and expert evidence in response, including a report from Mr Angus Wood. By the time of the hearing, the court had not given permission to either party to rely on expert evidence.[12]In its skeleton argument for the present hearing, KFH said that it did not intend to pursue the strike-out application for the time being because it needed further time to consider Mr Al Haroun’s responsive evidence. It confirmed that it therefore did not seek to rely on Mr Payne’s report at the hearing.[13]In his skeleton argument, Mr Al Haroun applied for an order that Mr Payne (and Mr Wood) should nevertheless be called to give oral evidence and cross-examined, if necessary at an adjourned hearing. I refused that application for reasons I gave during the hearing. The evidence of Mr Payne and Mr Wood (if admitted) would be relevant only to the question of whether Mr Al Sabah had an account with KFH, which is not a question that I am answering.[14]At the start of the hearing, Mr Al Haroun sought permission to rely on a supplementary bundle containing more than 400 pages of miscellaneous evidence, correspondence and other materials. The bundle was not provided to me in advance of the hearing and was provided to KFH only the day before. I did not consider that KFH had had a proper opportunity to respond to it and I refused to admit it. However, I permitted Mr Al Haroun’s counsel, Mr Wolman, to put certain documents in the bundle to the witnesses in cross-examination.[15]Two weeks after the hearing, I received by email from Mr Wolman detailed further written submissions on “evidence held by [KFH] of which he/the court was not aware that undermines the points made by [KFH] in cross-examination and in closing on several crucial issues”. Attached to the submissions were, amongst other things, several emails (with attachments) said to have been sent by Mr Al Haroun to KFH’s solicitors, Jones Day, on 1 July 2025, and two new expert reports prepared after the hearing: a “forensic report on tree reflections” dated 13 March 2026, and a “forensic report on metadata, courier reports and emails” dated 18 March 2026. Mr Wolman said that the emails were “key documents” in relation to KFH’s allegations of fraud and forgery.[16]KFH objected to the admission of those new materials. Amongst other things, it disputed the authenticity of the emails, which, it said, had not been received by Jones Day at the time and had never previously been mentioned. It cited R (MH) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept [2023] 1 WLR 423 (CA), where Elisabeth Laing LJ, said at [54]:
“If, after the hearing, counsel wish to raise a further point, they should tell the other party or parties, and ask the court’s permission before filing anything else. If the point concerns an issue which arose for the first time at the hearing, or which has unexpectedly come to light immediately afterwards, the court may well agree to the filing of further short submissions, provided that the point is raised promptly after the hearing (and subject to a right of reply). An advocate will, however, rarely be given permission to file a document which puts forward arguments which could and should have been made during the hearing.”
Mr Wolman did not seek permission before sending his submissions and the further materials.[17]I refused permission to the Claimant to rely on the post-hearing submissions and the materials filed with them. My reasons were these: i) Mr Al Haroun gave no reason why, if the emails are “key documents”, he did not exhibit them to his witness statements (the most recent of which was served on 25 February 2026), include them in the bundle, or raise them at the hearing. I could not fairly admit them without giving KFH the opportunity to respond, which would likely require further evidence and further cross-examination. In practice, the hearing would have to be re-run at considerable cost and delay. There were no new developments at or after the hearing sufficient to justify re-opening the evidence or the argument. ii) As for the expert reports on document examination, in making my findings on the forensic points raised by KFH, I have taken into account both the absence of expert forensic evidence from KFH and the argument by Mr Al Haroun that he was not given sufficient notice of those points. However, it would not be right to admit expert evidence (for which there is anyway no permission) after the hearing has concluded. The witnesses[18]KFH called five witnesses: i) Mr Nick Joyce, who is a solicitor and was at the relevant time head of KFH’s legal department and its company secretary; ii) Mr Sami Tamim, who was KFH’s chief executive officer until 3 November 2023; iii) Ms Golrokh Azharian, who was deputy chief executive officer of the Bank until 6 November 2023 when she became acting chief executive officer; iv) Ms Euphemia Deen, who is a senior payments clerk at KFH; v) Mr Jacob Tenobi, who is a concierge guest ambassador, employed by the company that manages 35 Portman Square, London, where KFH has its offices. I found all five to be honest and straightforward witnesses, although Ms Deen and Mr Tenobi did not have a detailed recollection of the events relevant to them, which is unsurprising since they were at the time routine matters.[19]KFH relies on the witness statement of Mr Timothy Houghton-Clemmey, head of institutional relationships at KFH. KFH originally intended to call him as a witness but it was explained to me that he had been off work for health reasons since November 2024 and was unable to give evidence. Although there was no specific evidence of that, KFH said that it would disclose the nature of his illness privately if ordered to do so. I did not require such disclosure and I accept the explanation. I do not draw any adverse inference from Mr Houghton-Clemmey’s absence, although in considering what weight to give to his evidence I take into account the fact that Mr Al Haroun had no opportunity to cross-examine him.[20]KFH also relies on witness statements of Mr Alex Unger, a partner in Addleshaw Goddard, solicitors previously acting for KFH; Mr Edward Bloor, KFH’s chief operating officer; and Mr Rhys Thomas, a partner in Jones Day. Mr Al Haroun did not require Mr Unger, Mr Bloor or Mr Thomas to attend for cross-examination and I accept their evidence.[21]Mr Al Haroun gave evidence himself and was cross-examined for about a day. He was a generally cooperative witness and attempted to give full answers to the questions put to him. However, as set out below, I found some of his explanations to be either not coherent or not credible. His general credibility is also seriously affected by the findings I have made below about the manipulation of documents and the submission of false evidence. I therefore approach his evidence with caution, but I do not reject it out of hand.[22]Mr Al Haroun also relies on an affidavit and a witness statement from Mr Peter Boekman, a process server, now deceased. The law[23]KFH seeks to set aside the contempt order for fraud or lack of service either(a) under the inherent jurisdiction of the court,(b) in furtherance of the overriding objective in CPR part 1, or(c) under CPR 3.1(7), which provides that the power of the court to make an order includes a power to vary or revoke the order.[24]KFH also relies on InPlayer Ltd v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511 as authority for the proposition that if the contempt order was made without KFH knowing of the hearing or the alleged grounds for it then it must be set aside under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial). Jackson LJ observed at [36–37] that it had been rightly conceded that there was a breach of article 6 where the accused was not told of the allegations against him until after being found guilty, and that it was a longstanding principle of the common law that every accused person was entitled to be informed of the charges which he faces.[25]I have no doubt that, if the application for a contempt order was deliberately not served on KFH, then the order must be set aside. As Foster J said in her judgment at [52], “the court will protect its own procedure by the use of [CPR] 3.1” or “would use CPR 1.1 to further the overriding objective where the allegation is that no service had, in truth, taken place”.[26]In the alternative, KFH seeks a re-hearing of the contempt application under CPR 23.11(2), which provides:(1) Where the applicant or any respondent fails to attend the hearing of an application, the court may proceed in their absence.(2) Where – (a) the applicant or any respondent fails to attend the hearing of an application; and (b) the court makes an order at the hearing, the court may, on application or of its own initiative, re-list the application.[27]The court’s power under CPR 23.11(2) was considered by Teare J in Ivanhoe Mines Ltd v Gardner [2019] EWHC 3142 (Comm). He said:
“The notes to the White Book refer to the discretion as being unfettered but also to the jurisdiction to re-list being exercised sparingly (see 23.11.3). There was no dispute at the hearing before me that the court should consider (at least) the following matters: (i) whether the applicant acted promptly when he learnt of the order made against him, (ii) whether he had a good reason for not attending the hearing and (iii) whether he has a reasonable prospect of overturning the order made in November 2018. These are not matters which must be established (cf applications after a trial pursuant to CPR 39.3(5)) but are matters to be weighed in the balance (cf Forcelux Ltd v Martyn EwanBinnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854 at paragraph 50).”
[28]KFH’s application to set aside the default judgment in the 2023 proceedings is made under CPR 13.2 and CPR 13.3. Under CPR 13.2, the court must set aside judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service if the claim form was not served, such that the time for acknowledgement had not expired. Under CPR 13.3, the court may set aside judgment if the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim, or if it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why the judgment should be set aside or varied or the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim. In considering whether to set aside a judgment, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.[29]KFH argues, and I agree, that Mr Al Haroun bears the burden of proving service on both applications. He was required to prove service to the satisfaction of the court to obtain the contempt order and the default judgment. Logically, he must retain that burden of proof if he seeks to maintain the order and judgment in the face of an argument by KFH that it did not have an opportunity to be heard because it was not served. However, I do not think that anything in practice turns on the incidence of the burden of proof since I have received extensive oral and documentary evidence from both parties on the issue of service and I make my factual findings on that evidence.[30]KFH asks the court to make findings of dishonesty against Mr Al Haroun. Although the usual civil standard of proof applies, cogent evidence is required to support such a finding. Sir Geoffrey Vos C said in Bank St Petersburg PJSC v Arkhangelsky [2020] 4 WLR 55 at para [46], citing with approval Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2010] EWHC 3199 (Comm) [1438]:
“[It] is well established that ‘cogent evidence is required to justify a finding of fraud or other discreditable conduct’: per Moore-Bick LJ in Jafari-Fini v Skillglass Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 261 at [73]. This principle reflects the court's conventional perception that it is generally not likely that people will engage in such conduct: ‘where a claimant seeks to prove a case of dishonesty, its inherent improbability means that, even on the civil burden of proof, the evidence needed to prove it must be all the stronger'’ per Rix LJ in Markel International Insurance Company Ltd v Higgins [2009] EWCA Civ 790 at [50]. The question remains one of the balance of probability, although typically, as Ungoed-Thomas J put it in In re Dellow's Will Trusts [1964] 1 WLR 451, 455 (cited by Lord Nicholls in In re H [1996] AC 563, 586H), ‘The more serious the allegation the more cogent the evidence required to overcome the unlikelihood of what is alleged and thus to prove it’. Associated with the seriousness of the allegation is the seriousness of the consequences, or potential consequences, of the proof of the allegation because of the improbability that a person will risk such consequences: see R (N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Region) [2005] EWCA Civ 1605; [2006] QB 468, para 62, cited in In re D (Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intervening) [2008] UKHL 33; [2008] 1 WLR 1499, para 27, per Lord Carswell.”
KFH’s response to the interim TPD order[31]It is common ground that the interim TPD order was properly served on KFH by Mr Al Haroun and that it came to the attention of senior management, including Mr Joyce.[32]Under CPR 72.6, a bank served with an interim TPD order must carry out a search to identify all accounts held with it by the judgment debtor and must disclose to the court and the creditor within seven days of being served with the order specified information about any such accounts, including the balance. If the judgment debtor does not hold an account with the bank, then the bank must inform the court and the judgment creditor of that fact within seven days of being served with the order.[33]Mr Joyce said that KFH carried out a search as required. He said that Ms Victoria Poile of the bank’s operations team searched records of existing and former customers for the preceding eight years to try to identify any accounts held by Mr Al Sabah personally but found none. In addition, Mr Robert White, the bank’s money-laundering compliance officer, checked the AML systems and found only that Mr Al Sabah held a beneficial 10% interest in two corporate customers of KFH.[34]However, as a result of what Mr Joyce described as an “oversight”, and for which he apologised to the court when he gave his evidence, KFH did not inform the court or Mr Al Haroun of the negative result of the search. Mr Joyce said that his understanding of the TPD order, and in particular the section entitled “what the third party will do”, was that KFH was not required to respond in circumstances where it held no accounts in the name of Mr Al Sabah. That understanding was wrong.[35]Mr Al Haroun does not accept that Mr Al Sabah had no account at KFH. He argues that KFH’s search was inadequate and points in particular to an email dated 30 August 2016 from Ms Julija Dornik, a relationship support officer at KFH, to a Sheikh Dhari asking whether an invoice could be paid by debit to “HE Sheikh Ahmed’s GBP Call Account”, which, he says, is a reference to an account of Mr Al Sabah.[36]I need not and cannot decide at this hearing whether Mr Al Sabah did or did not have an account. Although I did not stop Mr Wolman from asking the witnesses about the 2016 email and about the search for accounts in the name of Mr Al Sabah, that question is outside the scope of the issues directed by Master Gidden. It will need to be answered in the 2023 proceedings, if they continue.[37]Having received no response to the TPD order, Mr Al Haroun attempted to get in contact with KFH’s legal department through his personal financial adviser at the bank. After some delay, Mr Al Haroun was eventually contacted, on 16 March 2023, by Mr Ali Chami, a senior relationship manager at KFH. They discussed the TPD order, amongst other things. Mr Al Haroun said that Mr Chami told him that KFH’s official position was that it did not have any obligation to respond to Mr Al Haroun or to divulge any kind of information to any third party. When Mr Al Haroun warned Mr Chami that the Bank was in breach of the order and was putting itself in contempt of court, Mr Chami said (as Mr Al Haroun recalled it in his witness statement):
“You inquired about what happened with the legal department, so I am telling you exactly what occurred and what they wanted me to communicate to you, since the managers and legal department in charge are certainly more qualified and competent than I am in that respect. I have been formally asked to convey the message to you but please note that [KFH] already has reviewed everything you have provided me and chosen not to correspond to the documents submitted.”
[38]Mr Chami did not give evidence. Mr Joyce said that he had discussed Mr Al Haroun’s account of the conversation with Mr Chami and, while he could not confirm the precise words of the conversation, Mr Chami had confirmed that a conversation along those lines did take place and that the gist of Mr Al Haroun’s account of it was accurate. The evidence of service

Overview

[39]For the purpose of deciding the application to set aside the contempt order, the principal question is whether KFH was served with the contempt application and with the orders the breaches of which gave rise to the contempt found by the judge. Similarly, for the purpose of deciding the application to set aside the default judgment, the principal question is whether KFH was served with the 2023 proceedings. It is necessary, however, to consider those questions having regard to the evidence of service as a whole. If, as KFH argues, Mr Al Haroun’s objective was to obtain orders against KFH without its knowledge and without it having an opportunity to respond to them, then he could only have achieved that in practice by withholding all documents from KFH that referred to the proceedings. Otherwise, his subterfuge would be revealed. It follows that the evidence of service is self-reinforcing (or self-undermining): evidence indicating that some documents were wrongfully withheld tends to support a finding that others were also withheld, and, vice versa, evidence that some documents were served tends to support a finding that others were also served. Therefore, although I have set out and considered the evidence specific to each occasion on which documents were purportedly served, I have kept in mind the need to have regard to the overall picture.[40]During the hearing, KFH produced a helpful schedule of those documents that were relied on by Mr Al Haroun but were alleged by KFH to be false or inauthentic. I was also assisted by the preparation of the “primary documents bundle” which collated the relevant documentary material for each occasion on which Mr Al Haroun purportedly effected service on KFH. In total, there were sixteen such occasions (excluding service of the default judgment in the 2023 proceedings). On most of those occasions, Mr Al Haroun filed with the court (using the CE-file system) a signed certificate of service, usually with supporting evidence. Other supporting evidence was disclosed pursuant to the disclosure order of Master Gidden or exhibited to the parties’ witness statements. I have reviewed all the material in the bundle but, given the amount of it, set out below those parts that seem to me to be of principal importance.

KFH’s procedure for handling post and deliveries

[41]Mr Tenobi explained that incoming mail and other deliveries to 35 Portman Square are received at the main reception desk and then directed by staff to the appropriate office. He said that mail is delivered to the desk in bulk, sometimes in a sack, and he would then sort it by the name of the business. In the case of KFH, all deliveries would go to its post room. He said that he would not himself sign for individual items but would send the courier or delivery agent into the relevant office or call someone to come to reception to collect it.[42]Mr Joyce explained KFH’s procedure in his witness statement as follows:
“All post is delivered to the post room at first instance. If the post is registered mail, a member of the post room signs for the envelope/package with the courier at the door, following which, the package is delivered to the relevant recipient in the Bank and signed for by that person in a book. If the post is regular mail (i.e. not registered), the post room delivers the envelope/package to the relevant recipient in the Bank but it is not signed for… “Any post received by the front desk receptionists at 35 Portman Square is delivered directly to the post room at first instance. It then goes through the process set out… above. “Mail received into the building is promptly directed to where it needs to be by the post room. If the package bears the name of a specific person on the address label then the post room delivers it to that person. If the package does not bear the name of a specific person on the address label then the post room opens the package, checks the name of the sender on internal systems (e.g. client or third party names) and then delivers the package to the relationship manager or member of staff who is allocated to that client or third party.”
[43]The book referred to by Mr Joyce for the 2023 period (the post room book) was lost by KFH at some point after the applications were made and after Mr Joyce referred to it in his witness statement. KFH searched for it in May 2025 but could not find it. I return to the significance of that below. The interim TPD order[44]It is common ground that KFH received the interim TPD order, although there is a dispute about exactly how it arrived.[45]Mr Al Haroun said that he posted the order to KFH. He filed a certificate of service recording that the order had been served by first class post. He also filed a photograph of a computer-printed certificate of posting issued by Melcombe Street Post Office showing that two letters had been posted to KFH, one using the Royal Mail special delivery service and one using the Royal Mail signed-for service. He exhibited photographs he said he had taken of stamped envelopes addressed to KFH, and a downloaded Royal Mail delivery confirmation showing that one of the envelopes (with the same tracking number) was received at the Bank on 23 February 2023 and purportedly signed for by a person named in the confirmation as “Jacob”, presumably referring to Mr Tenobi.[46]Mr Tenobi said that he did not recognise the signature in the delivery confirmation as his, and speculated that the delivery agent might have known him and put in the name “Jacob” but signed the record themselves to save time. I note that signing an electronic tablet is sometimes awkward so it is not all that surprising that the output might differ from the signatory’s usual handwriting. At any rate, the delivery must have arrived at 35 Portman Square because it was signed for by someone.[47]Mr Joyce’s evidence was that KFH received the interim TPD order on 27 February 2023. KFH argues that the order cannot therefore have arrived by special delivery on 23 February 2023 and must have come in the regular post. The more likely explanation, in my view, is that there was simply an internal delay in it reaching Mr Joyce from the post room.

The continuation of the TPD order and the case management hearing

[48]The interim TPD order provided that there would be a hearing on 27 March 2023 before Master Cook to decide whether a final TPD order should be made. Mr Al Haroun was represented at that hearing by counsel, Ms Nicola Strachan, instructed by H&C. KFH was not represented, although it had notice of the date of the hearing from the order.[49]After the hearing, Master Cook made an order, initially dated 29 March 2023 but amended on 30 March 2023, continuing the interim TPD order. He ordered KFH to search for all accounts held by Mr Al Sabah, giving details of them to the court and Mr Al Haroun, and stating whether they held sufficient to cover the judgment debt and if not the amounts in them. He directed a further hearing on 28 April 2023 for the court to decide whether a final TPD order should be made and whether to refer KFH to a judge for failure to comply with the order. His order was endorsed with a penal notice.[50]Mr Al Haroun filed a certificate of service stating that he had posted that order together with a covering letter from H&C. The supporting evidence was similar to the service of the interim TPD order. He filed an image of a downloaded Royal Mail delivery confirmation recording a delivery to 35 Portman Square on 31 March 2023 and signed for, again, by “Jacob”. The confirmation included a photograph (partly obscured in the filed version) of a collection of mail addressed to 35 Portman Square piled on a desk. Mr Tenobi said, again, that he did not recognise his signature and would not himself have signed for a letter addressed to KFH. Mr Al Haroun also produced a photograph of a Post Office computer-printed certificate of posting recording that a large letter was posted to KFH’s address on 30 March 2023 at Clifton Road Post Office.[51]KFH’s case is that it never received the 30 March 2023 order at the time, nor did it receive any of the orders, applications or other relevant documents that followed.[52]On 14 April 2023, H&C prepared a reminder letter to KFH attaching the order of Master Cook dated 30 March 2023 and reiterating that failure to comply might amount to a contempt of court. Mr Al Haroun filed a certificate of service stating that the H&C letter had been sent by first class post, together with an image of a certificate of posting recording that one (unidentified) item had been posted to KFH. This certificate was in a different form from the two computer-printed certificates of posting referred to above. It was a pre-printed form completed in handwriting and apparently bearing a circular ink stamp marked “Romford MC—RM7 0AB” and the date 14 April 2023. Mr Al Haroun said that H&C assisted him with posting documents from Romford Mail Centre. I infer that the handwriting on the form is that of an H&C representative. There are many certificates of posting from Romford Mail Centre (MC) in the evidence, all in similar form, and I will refer to them as “Romford MC certificates”.[53]At the hearing on 28 April 2023 directed by Master Cook, Mr Al Haroun was represented by Ms Strachan and Mr Wolman, instructed by H&C. KFH was not represented. Master Cook ordered that, since KFH had failed to comply with either the interim TPD order or his order of 30 March 2023, and the court was satisfied that both had been served, the matter would be referred to a judge.[54]On 3 May 2023, Farbey J ordered (without a hearing) a short case management hearing for the week of 8 May 2023. On 12 May 2023, Stacey J re-listed the hearing for the week of 22 May 2023. The hearing took place on 25 May 2023 before Linden J. Mr Al Haroun was represented by Mr Wolman. KFH was again not in attendance or represented. Linden J ordered, amongst other things, that: i) KFH must pay directly to Mr Al Haroun as judgment creditor that sum of money that was equal to the aggregate balance in all the bank accounts with the Bank which have been in the name of Mr Al Sabah or of (or in relation to) which he had beneficial ownership; plus all sums of money subsequently transferred to, or deposited in, all such accounts prior to the date of payment, save that the maximum payment that the Bank was required to make should not exceed £7,882,702; ii) KFH must file and serve an affidavit setting out, amongst other things, the steps it had taken to search for accounts in the name of or beneficially owned by Mr Al Sabah; iii) Mr Al Haroun should draft, issue and serve on KFH personally, by no later than 8 June 2023, a contempt application for hearing in the window 26 to 28 June 2023.[55]The orders of Master Cook, Farbey J, Stacey J and Linden J were all purportedly posted to KFH from Romford MC. In each case, a certificate of service signed by H&C was produced together with a Romford MC certificate.[56]The bundle for the hearing before Linden J was not posted but was purportedly delivered to KFH by couriers Addison Lee (with Mr Al Haroun using H&C’s account with Addison Lee). Mr Al Haroun produced an electronic Addison Lee delivery confirmation dated 16 May 2023 signed for by “Chris”. A small part of the signature appears to have been redacted, for which there was no explanation, but I cannot see any particular significance in that. Mr Joyce said that “Chris” was likely Mr Christopher Murphy who worked in KFH’s post room but who was at the time of the applications on long term sickness absence and could not be contacted. Mr Joyce said that KFH’s head of human resources, Ms Marianne Macdonald had retrieved a copy of Mr Murphy’s signature from the bank’s files and it did not resemble the signature on the delivery confirmation. I do not attribute much significance to the disparity given the awkwardness of signing on an electronic tablet. At any rate, it appears that whatever was delivered by Mr Al Haroun via Addison Lee on 16 May 2023 was signed for by someone at 35 Portman Square.

The contempt application

[57]As directed by Linden J, Mr Al Haroun prepared a contempt application dated 8 June 2023 on form N600. It set out that KFH was in contempt by its breaches of the interim TPD order, the order of Master Cook dated 30 March 2023, the order of Master Cook dated 28 April 2023, and the order of Linden J dated 25 May 2023.[58]Mr Al Haroun said that he served the contempt application on KFH by courier (Addison Lee again) on 9 June 2023. He filed a certificate of service stating that the application and affidavit in support were handed by the courier to “Dina Demanual [sic] – AUB Bank”. The filing included an image of an Addison Lee confirmation recording that the delivery had been signed for by Nina Demanuel and purporting to show her signature (captured on an electronic tablet). Ms Demanuel was at the time an employee of KFH.[59]The filing also included a colour image of a single page document in the form of a cover sheet, apparently signed and dated by Ms Demanuel in red ink, and bearing the following printed text: DO NOT BEND/FOR AHLI UNITED BANK DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE FOR AHLI UNITED BANK Enclosed Court Documents Contempt Application Al Haroun v Al Sabah + AUB Dated: [handwritten date, “9 June 2023”] Signature: [handwritten signature] [handwritten name, “Nina Demanuel”] Ms Demanuel’s signature on the cover sheet corresponds to her true signature on other bank documents but does not resemble the signature on the delivery confirmation captured by the courier on the tablet. DO NOT BEND/FOR AHLI UNITED BANK DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE FOR AHLI UNITED BANK Enclosed Court Documents Contempt Application Al Haroun v Al Sabah + AUB Signature: [handwritten signature]

[handwritten name, “Nina Demanuel”]

[60]Mr Al Haroun said it was not part of the normal service for the courier to obtain a signature on a separate document as well as on the tablet, but that he paid the courier a small tip to do it.[61]Ms Demanuel is no longer an employee of KFH. Mr Joyce said that she was not willing to be a witness but that Ms Macdonald had spoken to her on 28 September 2023. No contemporaneous written record of the conversation was produced but, according to Mr Joyce, Ms Demanuel told Ms Macdonald:
“when answering the door for couriers, she would typically sign on an electronic tablet as evidence of her receipt of the relevant package… she did not know why she would sign on a piece of paper when receiving a courier package and she could not recall ever writing a manuscript date next to her signature in those circumstances.”
[62]Mr Al Haroun disclosed a screenshot of part of his WhatsApp conversation with the courier. The screenshot shows that at 07:25 on 9 June 2023 the courier sent to Mr Al Haroun a photograph of the cover sheet signed by Ms Demanuel. However, the screenshot is cut off (by scrolling the screen) so only the lower part of the document with the signature and name of Ms Demanuel is visible, but not the printed text referring to court documents. Mr Al Haroun said that his objective was to capture the date shown in the WhatsApp conversation, which is why the screenshot does not show the full document. Mr Al Haroun separately disclosed a further image of the complete cover sheet (i.e. with the printed text) purportedly created at 07:50 on 9 June 2023, which, he said, was “a capture or some sort of when I have saved it on my phone”.[63]Jones Day asked Mr Al Haroun to disclose the complete WhatsApp conversation “including an unabridged copy of the photo evidencing Ms Demanuel’s signature”. Mr Al Haroun did not provide it, explaining that the phone on which he received the message “was discovered missing on 28 March 2024” and that at some point after that he lost access to the conversation. He said:
“It was linked at a certain point before the whole thing went out. I was using it for a period of time, but just the WhatsApp, before I got a pin change and it actually disappeared. But I can’t remember when -- by when. And it may be after two or three months.”
[64]He exhibited to his fifth witness statement an email dated 28 March 2024 to o2fraudteam@o2.com reporting his phone stolen. The contempt hearing bundle[65]The hearing bundle for the contempt application was also purportedly couriered by Addison Lee. Mr Al Haroun filed with the court what appears to be a collection of five screenshots of an Addison Lee delivery confirmation dated 23 June 2023. The confirmation recorded that the delivery had been signed for by “Euphie” but did not contain a signature image in the signature box. It included a delivery photograph showing what appears to be top part of the cover sheet or title page for a “hearing bundle for a contempt of court application” with a signature written next to the title.[66]Mr Al Haroun also exhibited three photographs that he said that he took of the bundle before it was collected by the courier. They show a black lever-arch file and a large white envelope on which is written “AUB 35 Portman Square Gen Mgr/Legal Dept”.[67]As part of his disclosure in the applications, Mr Al Haroun disclosed (on 27 June 2025) an email sent by Addison Lee to H&C dated 23 June 2023 attaching another version of the delivery confirmation. This differs in two significant respects from the version filed with the court. First, the delivery photograph is not of the signed title page of the bundle but instead of a woman in a striped shirt holding an open thin brown envelope marked “35 Portman Square, London W1H 6LR”. Her face is not shown but it is not in dispute that it is Ms Euphie Deen, a senior payments clerk at KFH. Second, the signature box is not blank but contains a signature corresponding with Ms Deen’s.[68]When asked in cross-examination for his explanation of why the filed version of the delivery receipt was different and did not include the photograph of Ms Deen holding the envelope, Mr Al Haroun was unable to give a convincing or coherent explanation. All he said was:
“I don't believe that the -- first of all, in terms of principle, the way that I have learned it now after at least litigating with your client, is I am not required by the way to upload any sort of receipts. The [N]215 I think, the form, is more than enough. Do you agree or am I hallucinating?”
[69]When asked why Ms Deen was shown holding a thin brown envelope, rather than the white envelope shown in his own photographs, he said that there were two envelopes, a brown one and a white one, and he inserted the brown inside the white. He had not previously referred to the brown envelope, and it was not shown in his photographs. When asked why Addison Lee would take a delivery photograph only of the brown envelope, and not the white one that they were delivering, he said:
“No, I don’t have an explanation. The explanation is that the package went to the bank, the bank opened it. I am not suggesting that that Addison Lee opened the envelopes.”
[70]KFH put to Mr Haroun enlarged images of Ms Deen’s signature both(a) as it appeared on the title page of the bundle in the delivery photograph in the filed version of the confirmation and(b) as it appeared in the signature box on the version emailed by Addison Lee. KFH suggested to him that the images were identical, and so the signatures could not both have been applied by hand: one must have been transposed (“cut-and-pasted”) from the other.[71]In her witness statement, Ms Deen said that she had no memory of signing for the package, no knowledge of what it contained, and would not have removed a document from the package and signed the title page. If asked to do so, she would have refused and taken it to a more senior colleague. In cross-examination, she said:
“Normally when parcels and letters are delivered to the bank, the courier normally has an electronic -- a little device and they will ask you to sign on the device or they will ask your name and tap your -- and you spell it to them and they tap it into the electronic device. But whatever they give you is sealed and it normally has the bank's name and address on it or it will have a person's name and then the bank's name and the address, when it is handed to you. So it would be sealed, so that is -- it is unusual that I can see my signature on an open document. That does not make sense to me… “I would never sign for an opened document. If that was presented to me out of an envelope or package, then I wouldn't sign for it, I would have had to go and ask someone.”
Further service of the contempt application[72]The contempt application came before Constable J on 26 June 2023. It appears that he required further evidence of service before proceeding because he ordered, amongst other things, that: i) Mr Al Haroun must effect personal service on KFH of the contempt application and the supporting evidence, and the orders dated 30 May 2023 and his own order. ii) Personal service on KFH must be effected in accordance with CPR 6.5, that is to say by serving personally the documents on a person holding a senior position with KFH. iii) If Mr Al Haroun was unable to effect personal service he must make an application for service by an alternative method, such application to be determined on the papers.[73]Mr Al Haroun said that he engaged a process server, Mr Boekman, now deceased, to serve the contempt application. Mr Boekman’s written evidence was that he met Mr Al Haroun and Mr Kevin Gregory of H&C outside KFH’s offices on 28 June 2023. They showed him the documents and explained what the case was about and gave him a list of directors to whom he should if possible hand the documents, otherwise he should hand them to a senior manager. Mr Boekman said that he then went into KFH’s offices and was directed by the receptionist to see Mr Tim Houghton-Clemmey. However, Mr Houghton-Clemmey said (according to Mr Boekman) that he was unable to accept service on behalf of KFH, that none of the directors was presently in the UK, nor was Mr Tamim, the Bank’s chief executive, that no one in the office had the authority to receive legal documents, and that they should be sent by registered post or courier.[74]Mr Houghton-Clemmey’s written evidence was that he recollected a brief meeting with Mr Boekman on 28 June 2023 and that Mr Boekman had a package with him. Mr Boekman mentioned that the package was intended for a specific individual at KFH but Mr Houghton-Clemmey did not recognise the name. He did not recollect Mr Boekman saying that he was there to serve legal documents. He thought that he probably did tell Mr Boekman that the directors and Mr Tamim were not in the building. He said that he did not remember Mr Boekman asking whether he could accept the legal documents and would not have given any view about how they could be served. He said that if Mr Boekman had tried to give him the envelope and had said that it contained important legal documents then he would have accepted it and passed it to the legal team, but Mr Boekman left the Bank and took the envelope with him without attempting to leave it with him.[75]Since neither Mr Boekman nor Mr Houghton-Clemmey was available to give oral evidence, it is not easy to decide between their two accounts. The difference is perhaps not of great significance given that it is not suggested that Mr Boekman effected valid personal service during his visit. Nevertheless, even though he does not have a strong or detailed recollection of the meeting, I prefer Mr Houghton-Clemmey’s account. I regard it as unlikely that he would simply have refused to accept service if told that there were important legal documents affecting KFH and, if he had refused, I would have expected Mr Boekman to leave them with him.[76]Having not effected personal service of the contempt application, Mr Al Haroun applied on paper for an order for service by alternative means. His application notice, included the following explanation verified by statement of truth:
“2. On 9th June 2023, in accordance, we believed, with CPR r. 81.5 and r. 6.22, we served the Application form and associated documents on D2 at its registered offices, which are also its main branch in London. The courier did so by handing the documents personally to a Ms Nina Demanuel, who appeared to be in charge of the staff in the reception area and who signed for them. “3. At a hearing on 26th June, Mr Justice Constable determined that, whether or not ‘personal service’ for the purposes of CPR rr. 6.22 and 81.5 was to be construed in accordance with the definition in CPR sub-rule 6.5(3)(b) (as is implied in the White Book) and whatever the true position was of Ms Demanuel, a further attempt should be made, in view of the importance of the proceedings, to serve the documents personally on a director of D2 or on someone with similar status or position. If that attempt failed, an application should be made to the court to be dealt with on the papers under CPR r. 6.27 (referring back to r. 6.15) for permission to effect service by an alternative method or at an alternative place. “4. Consequently, I, with the assistance of my lawyers, instructed a process-server, Mr Peter Boakman, who is independent in the sense that he has no prior connection or association with my lawyers or with me. He has recorded what happened when, on 28th June, he visited D2’s offices and branch and attempted, unsuccessfully, to effect personal service on D2 of the documents by seeking to hand them to one of its directors or (as a last resort) to another senior member of staff. I attach a copy of his affidavit.”
[77]On 30 June 2023, Constable J ordered that Mr Al Haroun be permitted to serve the claim form “by registered post with proof of delivery to the registered address or by other delivery service which provides for delivery on the next business day in accordance with CPR 6.20(1)(b)”, with the envelope indicating that it contained important court documents to which a penal notice was attached. (The reference to service of the claim form appears to be an error; presumably the judge meant the application notice.)[78]A certificate of service filed by H&C records that H&C served by first class post documents described as “30th June Judge Constable Order of substituted service and supporting document”. A Romford MC certificate was also filed. Mr Al Haroun exhibited photographs of the front and back of the envelope that he said was posted. It was a large envelope addressed to “managers/directors/senior managers” at KFH with the words “URGENT ATTENTION—LEGAL DOCUMENTS” on the front. A copy of the order of Constable J dated 30 June 2023 was taped to the back, which was marked in red “COURT ORDER—IMPORTANT LEGAL DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED—URGENT ACTION REQUIRED”. In his witness statement, Mr Al Haroun said that the supporting documents were “as directed by the judge and as my counsel Clive Wolman specifically told Mr Gregory beforehand to make sure that he included”, although in cross-examination Mr Al Haroun said that he was unsure whether the contempt application was in the envelope.[79]Mr Al Haroun’s supplementary bundle included a phone screenshot purporting to show the location where the photographs were taken, with a view to proving that the relevant envelope was in the vicinity of Romford MC on the day of posting. As set out above, I refused to admit the supplementary bundle.

The Contempt Order

[80]H&C prepared a letter dated 20 July 2023 addressed to KFH stating that a hearing had been listed for 27 July 2023 and that all parties were required to attend. A Romford MC certificate was filed as evidence that the letter was posted to KFH.[81]The contempt application was heard by Mr Roger ter Haar KC, sitting as deputy High Court judge, on 27 July 2023. Mr Al Haroun was represented by Mr Wolman. Mr ter Haar KC was satisfied, as recorded in the preamble to his order, that there had been good and sufficient service of the contempt application. In his skeleton in support of the application, Mr Wolman said that the Bank had failed to respond to any of the previous orders and suggested that “the appropriate penalty may be a fine with the quantum set in the low six-figure range”. Mr ter Haar KC granted the application, declaring that the Bank was proved to be in contempt of court by reason of its ongoing failure to comply with the orders dated 30 March 2023 (Master Cook) and 25 May 2023 (Linden J) (but not the interim TPD order or the order of Master Cook dated 28 April 2023) and imposing a fine of £100,000. I was not provided with a note or transcript of the hearing or of the judge’s reasons.[82]Mr Al Haroun said that he served the contempt order in two ways, as recorded in a certificate of service signed by him on 14 August 2023. First, he left a copy of the order on 10 August 2023 at the Portman Square entrance lobby of KFH. Second, it was posted, and he produced a Romford MC certificate as evidence. He did not produce any evidence corroborating his visit to the bank. When asked why not, he said:
“I don't know what was the reason. It seems that, you know, perhaps I have described it -- you know, it was during August when my children are around. I don't know the actual reason.”

KFH’s application to set aside the contempt order

[83]On 14 September 2023, one of the King’s Bench associates emailed H&C and KFH (at KFH’s public email address info.aubuk@ahliunited.com) enquiring about payment of the contempt fine and attaching the contempt order.[84]Mr Joyce said that he saw the email on the morning of 15 September 2023 and it came as a shock to him. He immediately instructed external solicitors, Addleshaw Goddard, and initiated a series of internal searches to determine whether or not the Bank had ever received copies of any of the applications or orders in the 2018 proceedings. Those searches included the following: i) Mr Joyce sent an email to each of the heads of department and to KFH’s IT department asking for information as to whether they had received or seen any correspondence since February 2023, in hard or soft copy, from or in relation to any of a series of names and email addresses connected with the proceedings. ii) Mr Rob Brazier of KFH’s operations department searched KFH’s public email inbox. iii) KFH’s IT department conducted a search of the entire email system for emails received from email addresses connected with the proceedings iv) Mr Joyce spoke to the post room staff and was told that they were not aware of any uncollected or undelivered mail. v) On 29 September 2023, Mr Joyce sent an email to everyone in KFH asking them to let him know whether they had received or seen any documents or correspondence relating to Mr Al Haroun or Mr Al Sabah since February 2023. vi) There were searches in relation to documents stored by Ms Deen and Ms Demanuel, including filing cabinets and desk storage.[85]The searches revealed no trace of any of the documents purportedly served on KFH apart from the original interim TPD order. Mr Joyce explained that KFH’s office at 35 Portman Square was a relatively small one with just 130 employees. He said that most employees know each other and in his experience were aware that court documents must be promptly escalated to the legal department. He said that, since both the interim TPD order and the email from the court were escalated to him when they were received, he believed that if any of the other documents had been received by any Bank employee, either electronically or in hard copy, then they would similarly have been escalated.[86]Mr Tamim said that he also first became aware of the contempt order on 15 September 2023 when he was briefed by Mr Joyce on it. He said that he had been personally involved in the subsequent investigations, including speaking to bank employees and its head of operations. He also explained that the investigations undertaken by the Bank had been extensive and that it was inconceivable to him that such a substantial number of documents could disappear within the Bank without there being any trace of them. He said that Bank employees knew that any documents of a legal nature need to be escalated to the legal department and that that happened as a matter of course. Ms Azharian also gave evidence to similar effect about the investigations carried out by KFH and about the failure to find any trace or record of the documents said to have been served.[87]On 18 September 2023, Mr Joyce responded to the court saying that the contempt order “came entirely out of the blue from [KFH]’s perspective” and that KFH had not received any prior order in relation to the matter other than the TPD order.[88]On the same day, Mr Unger of Addleshaw Goddard emailed H&C, who had been copied to the court’s email. He said that, as far as KFH was currently aware, it had no knowledge of any application for a contempt order until it received the email from the court. He asked H&C for copies of the orders, applications and evidence in the proceedings. The request was repeated in a letter from Addleshaw Goddard dated 20 September 2023. On 28 September 2023, having received no response to their previous letter or email, Addleshaw Goddard sent a further letter to H&C.[89]On 4 October 2023, Mr Johan van Huyssteen of H&C finally responded to Addleshaw Goddard, saying that Mr Unger’s first letter had been delivered to the wrong part of the building in which H&C had its office and that his email had not been received. He said that H&C were unable to assist because their instructions from Mr Al Haroun had ended over a month earlier and that Mr Unger should contact Mr Al Haroun directly. Mr Unger noted that no notice of change had been served on KFH or filed with the court. The 2023 proceedings[90]The claim form was issued on 13 September 2023. Particulars of claim were settled by Mr Wolman. On 14 September 2023, Mr Al Haroun emailed Mr Wolman confirming his intention to serve the claim form and particulars of claim that day before 4pm. He said that he then travelled to KFH’s office with the documents. He gave this account in his witness statement of how he served them. “I went to one of the retail counters and, while standing there waiting, I took a photograph showing the envelope of the legal documents on the counter with the cashier behind working on her desktop computer… When the cashier turned her attention to me, I told her that I had some documents relating to a legal case that I wanted to deliver to the Bank’s legal department. She said that she was not allowed to receive this documentation herself and directed me to the Bank’s security officer… “[The security officer] asked me to sit down in that small waiting/meeting room. I said that I just wanted to give him an envelope of documents for the Bank’s legal department. But he asked me to wait… “He was away for a few minutes but upon his return said he could accept the documents. I then handed to him the envelope…”[91]On 29 September 2023, Mr Al Haroun filed a request for default judgment, accompanied by a certificate of service stating that he had served the sealed claim form and particulars of claim on 14 September 2023 and they had been received “by Bank Main Door Security Officer 35 Portman Square Door”. He also filed a pdf document with the name “n215 aub vs hh 14 sep (dragged).pdf”. That was a phone screenshot showing the photograph of Ms Deen holding the brown envelope, i.e. the one that had been taken by the Addison Lee courier on 23 June 2023, but now showing the time and date 15:53 on 14 September 2023.[92]Mr Al Haroun explained that the image showed the later date because it was “re-saved by me from my WhatsApp”. He said that he was “perhaps a little flustered and, by mistake, I re-saved and thus archived those photographs under the wrong date” and “having re-saved/archived [the image] on 14 September, I later inadvertently and perhaps clumsily uploaded in the same submission to the court, via the CE-File as my Default Judgment Request on 29 September 2023”. Mr Al Haroun was cross-examined at some length on this point; it was put to him that he used the photograph of Ms Deen because (since it had never previously been filed) no one would be able to prove that it was not taken in September.[93]Mr Al Haroun also relied on photographs that he said had been taken inside and outside KFH’s office on 14 September 2023 when he attended to serve the claim form. These showed:(a) the entrance of the bank viewed from the street;(b) the bank’s counter;(c) a large envelope addressed to KFH on the counter;(d) Mr Al Haroun apparently inside the bank.[94]KFH received the default judgment by post on 10 November 2023. Mr Joyce said that this was the first that he or the bank knew of the claim. On 13 November 2023, Mr Joyce sent an email to everyone at KFH working at 35 Portman Square asking them to let him know as a matter of urgency whether, in the period 13 to 15 September 2023, they had had any dealings with or received or saw any documents or correspondence relating to Mr Al Haroun. Except for an email confirming that Mr Al Haroun was an account holder at KFH, and negative responses from staff confirming that they had not received any documents, there was no substantive response to his email.[95]Mr Joyce and Ms Azharian searched the post room to see if it was possible to locate the brown envelope shown in the photograph of Ms Deen. They also spoke to a permanent member of the post room staff to see if they recalled it being delivered. There was no trace of the claim form and particulars of claim in the 2023 proceedings having been received, and the staff member had no recollection of seeing them or passing them on. Notice of change of representatives[96]Mr Al Haroun said that he ceased to be represented by H&C and gave notice of change of representatives on 31 August 2023 in the 2018 proceedings and on 14 September in the 2023 proceedings, in each case indicating that he would be acting in person. He said that those notices were posted to KFH. The notices were also submitted for filing with the court, but not until 6 November 2023. Mr Al Haroun said that he and H&C had tried to file the notices in September but there were technical difficulties and “it did not actually get into the system” until he spoke to the court later on.[97]In support of that position, Mr Al Haroun disclosed and relied on(a) an email dated 31 August 2023 from him to H&C attaching a copy of the notice in the 2018 proceedings and asking H&C to “please mail to [KFH] and send me the postage receipt”,(b) a Romford MC certificate of posting dated 31 August 2023, and(c) an email dated 5 September 2023 from H&C to the court attaching a copy of the notice and stating “we are having problem uploading the notice of change, please add to the file when you can”.[98]KFH said that it had not found the notices of change in its searches. It argued that they were never sent to KFH at the time and were backdated in order to concoct a reason for H&C’s failure to respond substantively to KFH’s enquiries until Mr Al Haroun had filed for default judgment.[99]KFH relies on evidence from Mr Unger about the metadata associated with the (pdf) version of the notice of change that was CE-filed in the 2018 proceedings. Mr Unger said that, although the document was dated 31 August 2023, the metadata showed that it was created on 5 November 2023 and was amended on 3 October, 1 November and 3 November 2023 to add additional information. For example, Mr Al Haroun’s email address was added on 3 November 2023. I note and return below to the apparent inconsistency between the creation and amendment date.[100]KFH makes a similar point about the notice of change in the 2023 proceedings. The version submitted for filing names the defendant as “Ahli United Bank UK”, but the metadata shows that the word “UK” was introduced on 5 November 2023 (and has a slightly different appearance from the rest of the text). The metadata also indicates that the document was created on 5 November 2023.[101]As set out above, Mr Al Haroun’s explanation for the fact that the notices, although dated August/September, were not filed until November was that there were technical difficulties with the CE-file system. In that respect (and in response to a query from Jones Day about the filing dates), Mr Al Haroun said, in an email dated 7 July 2025:
“Later that afternoon [sc. 14 September 2023] it became apparent that I was not able to file the document, I am not sure if it was a problem from my end or if the court’s electronic filing system was experiencing significant technical impediments, including on this particular filing attempt. As evidenced by the attached ‘Efile Error.PDF’, which I have captured during that time, it clearly displays system error messages on that date and maintenance alerts on or about that period, which explains that obtaining standard electronic confirmations on that date was not possible due to these malfunctions”
With that email, he disclosed a smartphone screenshot, purportedly captured on 17 August 2023, of a court-issued planned maintenance notice stating that CE-filing would not be available “between 17:00 Wednesday 16 August and 08:00 Monday 21st August”.[102]KFH points out that the words “Wednesday 16” in the notice have a visibly different appearance to the rest of the text. It argues that they must have been added to the document after it was sent out by the court because the true notice (which was received on 14 August 2023 by Jones Day as CE-file users themselves), while otherwise identical, states that the outage would be “between 17:00 Friday 18th August and 08:00 Monday 21st August” (my emphasis). When the difference was put to Mr Al Haroun, he denied that he had manipulated the document but said he had no explanation for the difference. CCTV[103]Mr Bloor explained that KFH operated 22 CCTV cameras, 21 internally and one positioned to overlook the entrance to the branch on Portman Street. KFH’s practice was to retain video for 51 days after which it would be automatically erased. No video remains for any of the relevant events.[104]If KFH had acted to preserve CCTV video as soon as it received the email from the court on 14 September 2023, then the video might have shown whether or not Mr Al Haroun in fact visited the bank to serve documents on 10 August 2023 (35 days earlier) and on 14 September 2023, as he later said that he did. With hindsight more could have been done to preserve CCTV evidence, but I draw no specific adverse inference from KFH’s failure to do so. Similar fact evidence[105]In its skeleton argument, KFH alleged that Mr Al Haroun had an extensive track record of fraudulent conduct in various jurisdictions. It relied on that as “similar fact evidence” showing his propensity to forgery and dishonesty. In particular, KFH alleged that Mr Al Haroun: i) had been convicted of forgery in Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Switzerland; ii) had close connections with H&C, in particular with Mr Gregory of H&C, who had been the subject of SRA disciplinary action, director disqualification proceedings, and a general civil restraint order; iii) had been involved in a claim seeking to enforce a fabricated arbitration award (Contax v Kuwait Finance House (Kuwait) [2024] EWHC 436); iv) had, in other proceedings brought by him, admitted responsibility for including inaccurate and fictitious material (AI generated) in his witness statement and sought to adduce expert evidence that the court rejected as unreliable (Al Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC & Anor [2025] EWHC 1588 (Comm)).[106]The allegations about the Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan convictions were based on local media reports. Mr Al Haroun said that the proceedings were politically influenced and it was action of that kind that led to him fleeing Kuwait and seeking and obtaining political asylum in the UK. He said that the charges in Jordan were dropped and that he was pardoned. I do not have enough reliable information about those proceedings to give them any weight.[107]KFH relied on a lengthy judgment of the Swiss Criminal Chamber for Appeal and Review dated 18 December 2023, which upheld convictions of forgery against Mr Al Haroun and Mr Al Sabah, and imposed suspended custodial sentences on them, in a case involving the fabrication of an arbitration agreement and award (similar, KFH said, to the Contax case). KFH argued that Mr Al Haroun had sought to conceal the conviction by producing a letter from the Swiss federal authorities in translation stating that there were no convictions or charges against him in Switzerland when the original French text simply said that he was not recorded in the Schengen information system (which would not in any event show a suspended sentence of less than three years).[108]Mr Al Haroun’s response was that the Swiss case was “a by-product of the political crisis in Kuwait”, that the facts on which he was convicted would not have justified a conviction under English law, and that there were anyway pending appeals against his conviction. He said that the arbitration was not fabricated but a “friendly” one designed to obtain an adjudication of a dispute about the authenticity of certain politically sensitive tape recordings.[109]Whilst the fact of the conviction is apparent from the judgment, KFH did not adequately explain to me on what legal basis it would be admissible in the present proceedings as evidence that Mr Al Haroun actually committed the underlying criminal acts, having regard to the principle in Hollington v Hewthorn, particularly while an appeal is pending. I do not think that I could fairly attach any weight to it without a disproportionate satellite inquiry into the evidence that was adduced as the basis for the decision.[110]Contax was undoubtedly a case of brazen dishonesty. The court was persuaded to enter judgment in the amount of about £70m on an arbitration award against the defendants (companies in the same group as KFH). Butcher J later set aside the judgment, finding that there was no arbitration agreement or arbitration, and that the award was entirely fabricated. Before it was set aside, the claimant, who, like Mr Al Haroun, was initially represented by H&C, had purported to serve the judgment on the defendants at 35 Portman Square, and later to serve TPD orders on a number of other banks by way of enforcement of the judgment. As evidence of service, H&C produced certificates of posting in very similar form to the ones used in the present case and bearing Romford MC stamps.[111]Although Mr Al Haroun was not a party to the case, KFH argued that he was connected to it in a number of respects, including the following: i) Mr Adensanu of H&C told Jones Day that the case was “Hamad’s case”, meaning (KFH said) Mr Al Haroun’s case. ii) Mr Gregory of H&C, gave a statement in the Contax case in his capacity as company secretary of a company called Addax Petroleum, and there was a connection between Addax and Mr Al Haroun because both had occupied or used a property at 36 Chagford Street. iii) The defendants were companies in the same group as KFH and the Contax proceedings were ongoing at about the same time in mid 2023 as Mr Al Haroun and Mr Gregory were working on the present case. iv) Mr Al Haroun had been given access to some of the Contax materials by H&C.[112]I am not persuaded that any of those matters establish a sufficient connection between Mr Al Haroun and the Contax proceedings to justify a finding that he was significantly involved in them and so treating them as evidence of a propensity on his part for forgery or dishonesty. I do, however, note the similarity between the certificates of posting stamped by Romford MC that were used by H&C in Contax and those relied upon in the present case, a point to which I return below.[113]Finally, I do not attach any weight to KFH’s allegations about Mr Al Haroun’s misconduct in Al Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC, which appears to have little connection with the issues in the present case. Discussion Possible explanations

Discussion

[114]In opening KFH’s applications, Mr Pillow KC submitted that there were three possible explanations for what happened in the period after service of the interim TPD order on KFH in February 2023. The first is that the subsequent orders, applications, proceedings and other documents were all served, as Mr Al Haroun said that they were, but, for some reason, they either never progressed beyond the main building reception or KFH’s post room or, if they did, they never came to the attention of any person within KFH who appreciated their significance, and they could not later be found. The second possibility is that the documents did come to the attention of such a person, but they were deliberately ignored. The third possibility is that the documents were never served, and Mr Al Haroun concealed them and is lying about what he says was done by him and H&C by way of service. I agree that those are indeed the possible explanations—none other was suggested by either party.[115]I rule out the second possibility. Having heard the evidence and cross-examination of Mr Joyce, Mr Tamim and Ms Azharian I am satisfied that they were truthful witnesses. I find that they were themselves unaware of the contempt proceedings before KFH received the email from the court on 14 September 2023.[116]KFH’s failure to respond properly to the interim TPD order when it was served in February 2023 shows a lack of understanding of a basic procedural obligation that is regrettable and surprising for a bank, all the more so given that Mr Al Haroun warned Mr Chami at the time that KFH’s stance put it at risk of contempt. However, notwithstanding that failure, I regard it as inherently unlikely that Mr Joyce or other senior management would have deliberately ignored the contempt proceedings if they had come to their attention. I can see no reason for them to expose KFH and themselves to the risk of the cost and reputational damage of the court imposing a contempt sanction at a hearing where KFH was unrepresented. KFH’s actions after 14 September 2023, including Mr Joyce’s prompt correspondence with the court and the appointment of solicitors, is entirely consistent with its position that the receipt of the contempt order from the court came as a shock to senior management.[117]I also find that KFH’s senior management were unaware of the 2023 proceedings until the default judgment was received in the post on 10 November 2023. It is, again, inherently unlikely that they would have deliberately ignored the service of the claim form and particulars of claim and so exposed KFH to the risk of a large judgment in default, only to apply to set it aside as soon as the judgment was received.[118]For his part, Mr Wolman presented three of his own hypotheses to explain KFH’s conduct. His first hypothesis, on the assumption that KFH had “concealed the existence of protected VVIP [sc. very, very important person] accounts”, was that KFH’s senior management in the UK knew that Mr Al Sabah had an account with the bank but were told by the board that his privacy must be protected at all costs given his status as a VVIP. Second, on the same assumption, that the senior management in the UK turned a blind eye but “one or more of the main board directors, probably the Kuwaiti ones, operate a back channel into which all legal documents threatening the privacy of a VVIP account which are delivered to [KFH] are diverted to Kuwait and handled there”. Third, that the management of KFH’s internal systems was “seriously flawed by a mixture of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence”.[119]I cannot accept Mr Wolman’s assumption because the question of whether Mr Al Sabah in fact had an account with KFH is not the subject of the present hearing and has yet to be decided. But even if there were such an account, and even if KFH’s strategy was to avoid revealing it, it is hard to see why that would motivate management to deliberately ignore the contempt proceedings or the 2023 proceedings and allow them to proceed by default with the obvious financial and reputational risks to KFH.[120]If, as I have found, KFH did not deliberately ignore the proceedings, then I must consider the relative likelihood of the other two possibilities identified by Mr Pillow KC, i.e.(a) that the documents relating to the proceedings were mislaid or misdirected or overlooked (perhaps through arrogance, ignorance or incompetence, as in Mr Wolman’s third hypothesis) or(b) that they were never served in the first place. As I have said above, on KFH’s case that Mr Al Haroun’s objective was to conceal the proceedings, it is unlikely that only some but not all documents were mislaid, or that some but not all were withheld: the more plausible outcomes are that they were all mislaid or all withheld.[121]KFH’s case that none of the documents was served implies that Mr Al Haroun and H&C were engaged in a series of dishonest acts over many months, including signing false certificates of service, forgery, creating sham documents that were never sent and decoy documents that were sent in their place, and giving false evidence at several hearings, including before me. KFH did not shrink from that: as Mr Pillow KC said, its case is “bluntly and flatly one of fraud” (and the Contax case is an illustration of how far some fraudsters are prepared to go). Such a case requires cogent evidence, however. KFH’s inability to find the documents[122]Between March 2023 and September 2023, documents were purportedly served on KFH on and n separate occasions. I accept the evidence of Mr Joyce, Mr Tamim and Ms Azharian about the searches that were conducted on their instructions after 14 September 2023, as well as their evidence that those searches did not find any of the documents that were purportedly served (apart from the interim TPD order). KFH argues that since the documents have not been found they cannot have been received or sent. As Mr Joyce said in his first witness statement, “it is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which on each occasion those court documents could have been received and then gone missing without any trace or record being left behind”, which, he said, “supports the view that the Bank never in fact received them”.[123]That is on its face a powerful circumstantial argument. It is exemplified by, and has particular force in relation to, the purported postal service of the contempt application on 30 June 2023. On Mr Al Haroun’s case, in accordance with the photographs he took, the application was inside a large envelope marked on the outside in red “COURT ORDER—IMPORTANT LEGAL DOCUMENT ENCLOSED—URGENT ACTION REQUIRED”. Its importance ought therefore to have been obvious to anyone who handled it in KFH’s post room or elsewhere in the bank, even without opening it. A similar point can be made about the purported service by courier of the application on 9 June 2023, when, on Mr Al Haroun’s case, it was accompanied by a cover sheet referring to “Court Documents” and a “Contempt Application”. It is also significant that the interim TPD order and default judgment were received and were passed on to KFH’s legal department, which suggests that the procedure described by Mr Joyce for handling incoming post was to that extent working properly.[124]However, KFH’s argument is in my view weakened significantly by the evidence that it did receive at least some documents sent by Mr Al Haroun, which it has also been unable to find in its searches. KFH’s proposition that “nothing was found implies that nothing was delivered” is undermined by evidence that something was delivered but not found.[125]I can be satisfied that KFH received some documents from Mr Al Haroun (beyond the interim TPD order) because on four occasions he sent them by special delivery post or courier, as proved by the signed delivery confirmations. KFH says that the signatures on three of those confirmations do not match those of the persons purportedly signing (Mr Tenobi on 31 March 2023, Mr Murphy on 16 May 2023, and Ms Demanuel on 9 June 2023) and that the fourth, signed by Ms Deen on 23 June 2023, has been manipulated. Nevertheless, someone must have signed for each of those deliveries; and it follows that on each of those four occasions something was delivered to 35 Portman Square addressed to KFH.[126]KFH argues that deliveries might not have passed beyond the main building reception desk at 35 Portman Square to KFH’s post room. I reject that. I cannot see any reason why incoming post would not have been passed on to KFH as addressee and I accept Mr Tenobi’s evidence that that is what routinely happened. In any case, deliveries or documents signed for by Mr Murphy, Ms Demanuel and Ms Deen clearly did pass beyond the reception.[127]KFH also argues (and is logically driven to argue) that, if documents were delivered and received in the post room, they were not as described in the certificates of services. They were, in effect, decoys: irrelevant documents carefully prepared for the purpose of creating a record of service without alerting KFH to the proceedings or arousing any suspicion about what was going on. But, if that is right, where are those decoys—why were they not found in KFH’s searches?[128]KFH’s position at this point faces the difficulty that at least the four signed-for deliveries should have been readily traceable because they would have been recorded in the post room book for 2023. Unfortunately, KFH has lost the book. Mr Wolman did not suggest that KFH deliberately destroyed or withheld the book, and there is no evidence to suggest that, but he argued that I should apply as a presumption against a “spoliator of evidence” that any matter which that post book entry would have resolved should be determined against KFH. I am not prepared to go as far as that. But I do take into account that KFH’s difficulty in showing what was in fact delivered on those four occasions is a difficulty that arises in large part because of its own failure to preserve important evidence even after it had made its applications.[129]On nine further occasions, documents were purportedly posted by H&C to KFH from Romford MC using the regular first-class service, i.e. without requiring signature on receipt. Mr Al Haroun has produced a Romford MC certificate of posting for each one. KFH argues that those certificates of posting were(i) forged,(ii) relate to documents that were not posted, or(iii) relate to different documents (i.e. different from the documents said to have been served in the filed certificates of service).[130]Forgery would mean either that the stamps were not applied by Romford MC (i.e. that H&C or Mr Al Haroun created a fake stamp) or that the certificates, or the images of them, were modified after they were stamped. There is no direct evidence of either of those things. There has been no forensic examination of the original certificates or the images and there is no evidence before me as to the practice of Romford MC in issuing or stamping certificates of posting.[131]KFH relies on the fact that in the Contax proceedings H&C relied on similar certificates of posting, bearing similar stamps, as evidence that they had served the judgment on the defendants and had served TPD orders on Barclays, JP Morgan, HSBC and Citibank. Butcher J set aside the TPD orders on the basis that the judgment had not been properly served on the defendants (see paragraph 19 of the judgment), and Mr Thomas of Jones Day said that he was told by some of the banks that they did not receive the TPD orders either.[132]KFH also asks the court to draw an adverse inference from the fact that Mr Al Haroun did not call as a witness Mr Kevin Gregory, or any other representative of H&C, to give direct evidence about the posting of documents from Romford MC.[133]There is certainly a striking similarity with the Contax proceedings as regards the use of Romford MC certificates, although it is not clear to what extent the evidence and findings in that case were focused on service issues. I have said above that I do not think that there is sufficient evidence of Mr Al Haroun’s connections with the Contax proceedings to treat it as evidence of his own propensity for dishonesty, but it is nevertheless relevant that H&C were responsible for posting documents from Romford in both cases. Witness evidence from Mr Gregory, or a relevant representative of H&C, would have been relevant in the present proceedings, and Mr Al Haroun did not suggest that there was any reason why Mr Gregory could not have been called.[134]I have also considered, because it is necessary to look at the position in the round, KFH’s case that Mr Al Haroun forged other documents (as to which, I have set out my findings below) and its case that it never received the documents said by Mr Al Haroun to have been posted from Romford. And, of course, I have in mind Mr Al Haroun’s oral evidence, maintained under cross-examination, that those documents were indeed posted as he and H&C said that they were.[135]Overall, whilst there is force in KFH’s points, I have concluded that, without any direct evidence or forensic evidence, there is insufficient material to show that the Romford MC certificates, or any of them, were forged.[136]If they are not forgeries, then it can be inferred that Romford MC would not have stamped them without accepting items for posting to KFH as recorded in the certificate. Something must have been sent, therefore. The certificates do not record or reveal what that was, but if, as KFH argues, the documents were not as stated in the certificates of service, then they can only have been further decoys. As with the signed-for deliveries, that case faces the difficulty that KFH has not found or identified those documents (noting that documents sent by regular post would not have been recorded in the post book). Mr Al Haroun’s failure to contact KFH by telephone or email[137]KFH argues that, if Mr Al Haroun had genuinely served KFH but received no response, then he could have been expected to have tried to contact KFH by telephone or email, e.g. using KFH’s public email address as the court did. Mr Al Haroun described himself as a “known and valued client, regularly engaged with Bank staff”. However, Mr Al Haroun had been firmly rebuffed by Mr Chami when he raised the issue of compliance with the TPD order. I would not regard it as surprising if he had formed the view that KFH had taken the position that it would not engage with his legal process. Forgery[138]I turn next to KFH’s allegations of forgery (other than in relation to the Romford MC certificates, which I have already addressed). 9 June 2023 cover sheet[139]KFH’s case is that when the cover sheet was signed by Ms Demanuel it did not include the text referring to legal documents, which was added to the image of the cover sheet by Mr Al Haroun at some later point.[140]There has been no forensic examination (at least there is no expert evidence before the court) of either the original cover sheet (which was received by KFH but appears not to have been found) or the image of the cover sheet disclosed by Mr Al Haroun.[141]Mr Al Haroun objected to KFH’s reliance on what Ms Demanuel told Ms Macdonald (i.e. that she did not know why she would sign on a piece of paper, as opposed to a tablet evidence) as second-hand hearsay in circumstances where there was no good reason why Ms Demanuel could not have been called as a witness. I am prepared to admit the evidence as hearsay, but it does not take KFH very far. Ms Demanuel did not deny signing the cover sheet and I have no reason to doubt that her signature is genuine (it could not have been forged by Mr Al Haroun because he did not have a copy of it in advance). Ms Demanuel also did not say, and does not appear to have been asked, whether the text referring to legal documents was on the cover sheet when she signed it.[142]Mr Pillow KC put to Mr Al Haroun that the image of the signed cover sheet sent by the courier by WhatsApp appeared to have more creases than the image later disclosed by Mr Al Haroun, indicating that the latter image had been manipulated. Although that difference can be detected—just about—by inspection, it may be attributable to lighting or printing variations, and without expert forensic evidence I do not attach weight to it.[143]The complete record of Mr Al Haroun’s WhatsApp conversation with the courier would likely have resolved the issue by showing the state of the cover sheet when it was signed. Mr Al Haroun’s evidence about why he could not disclose the full conversation was not satisfactory. He said that he had lost his phone in March 2024, but he must have had access to the conversation after that because the screenshot included a notification dated July 2024. He was unable to give any convincing explanation as to what caused him to lose access thereafter. It is surprising and unsatisfactory that he did not back up or otherwise take steps to preserve evidence of such obvious importance to the applications that he was defending. Nevertheless, without any direct or forensic evidence, I am not persuaded that Mr Al Haroun forged the image of the cover sheet as alleged by KFH. 23 June 2023 Addison Lee delivery confirmation[144]KFH’s case is that Mr Al Haroun forged the image of the delivery confirmation that he filed as evidence of service on 23 June 2023 by substituting the delivery photograph, which showed Ms Deen holding an envelope, with one showing the front page of the bundle for the contempt hearing, and by transposing Ms Deen’s signature on to that front page.[145]As I have set out above, there are two, inconsistent, versions of the delivery confirmation, one that Mr Al Haroun filed, and a second that he disclosed on 27 June 2025. I can see no good reason for that, and Mr Al Haroun in my view had no credible explanation for it. I accept Ms Deen’s evidence that she would have signed for a delivery on a tablet but would not have opened the package and signed a document inside it, as the filed version appears to show.[146]KFH asks me to find that signature images on the front page of the bundle of first version and in the signature box in the second version are identical. It argues that I can make that finding by inspection of the enlarged images, without requiring expert forensic evidence, relying on Phipson on Evidence, 21st edition, 33-116 and Sahota v Sohal [2022] EWHC 2459 (Ch). I accept that there is no rule that prevents the court from forming a view by inspection, and on inspection the similarity is striking. I approach the exercise with caution since a detailed comparison of images at a microscopic level is normally the preserve of the forensic document examiner, and the similarity of the signature images was a point raised only in cross-examination. Nevertheless, it is evidence that I take into account.[147]Mr Al Haroun denies any manipulation. He argues that the signature could have been transposed in the other direction, i.e. from the ink signature on the cover sheet to the signature box. I find that implausible. The image in the signature box must have been captured electronically from the tablet. In any event, his argument would not explain why the signature box was blank in the version of the proof of delivery that he filed.[148]Considering the forensic evidence and the witness evidence as a whole, I find on the balance of probabilities that the filed version of the delivery confirmation has been manipulated by Mr Al Haroun or with his knowledge in the way alleged by KFH.[149]Why would Mr Al Haroun do that? It is clear that a package of some kind was delivered to Ms Deen on 23 June 2023 because she signed for it. One possibility is that the bundle was not inside the package (i.e. it contained a decoy) but Mr Al Haroun wanted to pretend that it was, by creating a record of her signature on the title page. It is also possible, however, that the bundle was in the envelope and he was (improperly) trying to “improve” the evidence of service after the event in circumstances where KFH had failed to engage at all with the proceedings. Proof of manipulation does not therefore equate to proof of non-service.[150]KFH also relies on the fact that the delivery photograph shows Ms Deen holding a thin brown envelope, too small for the bundle, and not the large white envelope in Mr Al Haroun’s photograph into which he said he put the bundle. Even though he had not mentioned the point before, I am inclined to accept Mr Al Haroun’s explanation that the brown envelope was inside the white envelope. If his objective was to create a false record of service of the bundle, while in fact sending a decoy, it would seem perverse to take a photograph of the large white envelope and then to send the decoy in a different envelope. 17 August 2023 maintenance notice[151]KFH’s case is that Mr Al Haroun forged the image of the CE-file maintenance notice by changing the date to show that the system was unavailable from 16 August 2023 to 21 August 2023, rather than only from 18 August 2023.[152]The difference between the version of the notice disclosed by Mr Al Haroun and version received by Jones Day and other CE-file users calls for an explanation, and Mr Al Haroun was unable to give one. That said, I find it hard to see what motive Mr Al Haroun might have had for the particular manipulation alleged by KFH. Although Mr Al Haroun relies on the unavailability of the CE-file system generally as an explanation of his inability to file certain documents promptly, particularly the notices of change of representative, it is no part of his case or KFH’s case that anything could or should have been filed on 16 or 17 August 2023. The availability of the system on those two days has no apparent relevance to anything that is or might have been in dispute. In those circumstances, and absent any forensic evidence about the email, I am not satisfied that the email was forged. 14 September 2023 image of Ms Deen[153]KFH’s case is that Mr Al Haroun filed this image (the photograph of Ms Deen holding an envelope) with the intention of creating false evidence of service of the 2023 proceedings, and that he changed the date on the image from 23 June 2023, when the photograph was taken, to 14 September 2023.[154]I cannot say whether Mr Al Haroun deliberately changed the date or, as he says, that it was in some way changed automatically to match the date of filing. However, I reject his evidence that he filed the image by mistake because he was “flustered” or “clumsy”. It is implausible that he could have extracted the image from the delivery confirmation and then uploaded it to CE-file inadvertently. I accept KFH’s case on this issue and I agree that Mr Al Haroun was likely seeking to take advantage of the fact that the photograph had not been filed at the time it was taken and so was available to be reused to support a later service. As with the Addison Lee delivery confirmation, that does not necessarily mean that there was no service. 14 September 2023 photographs of the bank’s premises[155]KFH argues that at least one of the photographs—the one taken by Mr Al Haroun from the pavement outside KFH looking towards its entrance door—must have been taken in 2021 or earlier and then falsely dated 14 September 2023. KFH produced Google Street View images showing that in January 2018 there was a large tree near the entrance, but it had been removed by January 2021. KFH argues that the photograph exhibited by Mr Al Haroun shows the reflection of the foliage of that tree in the windows of the building, which means that the photograph must have been taken before the tree was removed. KFH also argues that the signage of the Bank has changed colour slightly between 2018 and 2023 and that Mr Al Haroun’s photograph shows the older version.[156]Ingenious though those arguments are, I do not think that it would be fair to give them weight without more rigorous forensic evidence, and without Mr Al Haroun having had the opportunity to adduce his own forensic evidence (as he sought to do in his post-hearing submissions). The Google Street View images produced by KFH do indeed show that the tree in question had been removed by 2021, but I was not provided with any photographs of the opposite side of the road, so it is theoretically possible that vegetation on that side might have caused a reflection in 2023. The colour differences of the signage might be the result of lighting or photographic variations between the Google image and the photograph taken by Mr Al Haroun. It is also hard to see what motive Mr Al Haroun might have had to manipulate and reuse a pre-2021 photograph (assuming that he happened to have one available) as evidence that he was standing in the street outside the bank in 2023 when he could simply have taken a new one. 31 August 2023 and 14 September 2023 notices of change[157]Mr Al Haroun objected to KFH’s reliance on the metadata extracted by Mr Unger without expert evidence and without his having the opportunity to adduce expert evidence of his own. However, the points about the metadata in the notices of change had been raised in Mr Unger’s witness statement served on 28 November 2023. Master Gidden gave both parties liberty to apply for permission to adduce expert evidence, but neither did so. Mr Unger’s evidence was not challenged. Mr Al Haroun had a sufficient opportunity to respond to KFH’s case on the notices of change insofar as it was based on Mr Unger’s evidence.[158]KFH’s case is that the notices of change were created in November 2023 and backdated to August/September, and that the emails to which they were attached (from Mr Al Haroun to H&C dated 31 August 2023 and 14 September 2023, and from H&C to the court dated 5 September 2023) are forgeries or have been manipulated.[159]The metadata extracted from the filed versions of the notices of change appears to show that the documents (in pdf) were created on 6 November 2023, but it also shows that they were edited on 3 October, 1 November and 3 November 2023. That inconsistency was not explained, which leads me to be cautious about how I interpret it. If it is reliable, then those specific documents could not have been attached to emails in August or September because they did not then exist, or at least they did not exist in the form and with the content that they appear to have as attachments to the emails.[160]Mr Al Haroun did not give any satisfactory explanation of the discrepancies. I also find it implausible that he and H&C could have encountered technical difficulties so intractable as to prevent them from filing the notices of change for over two months until 6 November 2023. When asked about that, he said:
“Honestly, the whole CE filing system to me was a big taboo at the beginning. So me, I was trying to get adjusted with it and perhaps I think I have mentioned somewhere, as per my memory, in one of my statements, that when I used to simply try to upload, I do not know whether it is a problem with the system itself or if it was a problem with me personally not being able technically to know how to do it.”
Given that he had filed numerous documents by this time, and there was no apparent difficulty in filing the request for default judgment on 29 September 2023, I did not find that explanation convincing.[161]Nevertheless, the discrepancies do not necessarily imply anything has been forged or manipulated. It is theoretically possible (although Mr Al Haroun did not say so) that new electronic versions of the notices were created in November 2023 for the purpose of filing with the same content as the versions signed and emailed earlier. The relevant emails are on their face regular and there has been no forensic examination of them, nor (as far as I am aware) any enquiry of the court as to whether it received the email purportedly sent by H&C on 5 September 2023. Without any expert evidence about the emails and the notices attached to them, I cannot be satisfied that they have been manipulated. Motive[162]Finally, I turn to motive. Motive is always an important consideration when dishonesty is alleged; see ED&F Man Capital Markets v Come Harvest Holdings Ltd [2022] EWHC 229 (Comm) [71]:
“iii) Although not strictly a requirement for such a claim, motive "is a vital ingredient of any rational assessment" of dishonesty: Bank of Toyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd v Baskan Sanayi Ve Pazarlama AS [2009] EWHC 1276 (Ch) at §858 per Briggs J. By and large dishonest people are dishonest for a reason; while establishing a motive for conspiracy is not a legal requirement, the less likely the motive, the less likely the intention to conspire unlawfully: Group Seven Ltd v Nasir [2017] EWHC 2466 (Ch) at §440 per Morgan J. “iv) Assessing a party's motive to participate in a fraud also requires taking into account the disincentives to participation in the fraud; this includes the disinclination to behave immorally or dishonestly, but also the damage to reputation (both for the individual and, where applicable, the business) and the potential risk to the "liberty of the individuals involved" in case they are found out: Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd v Baskan Sanayi Ve PazarlamaAS [2009] EWHC 1276 (Ch) at §§858, 865 per Briggs J.”
It is particularly important where the alleged dishonesty would have involved significant time, effort and risk by the person accused.[163]Why would Mr Al Haroun wish to pursue proceedings against KFH while concealing them? KFH argues that he had two motivations. First, he had a hostile attitude towards KFH arising from a long running personal financial dispute. KFH had initiated possession proceedings to enforce a mortgage over a property belonging to him. Second, he was generally hostile to the Kuwaiti government, having had to seek asylum in the UK to escape persecution by the government. Mr Pillow KC put KFH’s case on motive to Mr Al Haroun in this way: Q. You see, I am suggesting you do bear a serious grudge against the bank because they are trying to repossess your family home, don't you? A. A grudge? Q. A grudge? A. No, I don't have a grudge, and just for the record, just for the record, and for the court's record, since we are simply talking about the grudge and all of these things, there are at least four to five members of the board that are, by blood, directed to me. So you have to know that Hamad Abdulmohsen Almarzouq is my mother's cousin. The head of the audit committee is married to my wife… So there is no grudge, there is no personality in that, for sure. Sheikh Salem Al Sabah, the ex-governor, is actually the uncle of my wife. So there is no sort of grudge or person with regards to what you are suggesting. Q. The bank is now owned by Kuwaiti interests, isn't it? A. By the Kuwaiti government. Q. Is that yes or no? A. By the Kuwaiti government. Q. Right. And the Kuwaiti government you say has persecuted you and obtained criminal convictions against you, both in Kuwait and Switzerland, as a matter of political persecution, you say, don't you? A. Correct. Q. So you bear a grudge against the Kuwaiti government that owns the bank, don't you? A. A grudge? No. It doesn't work that way. A. A grudge? Q. A grudge? Q. The bank is now owned by Kuwaiti interests, isn't it?

Q. Is that yes or no?

[164]KFH argues that the interim TPD order was not a genuine attempt to enforce the judgment debt because Mr Al Haroun did not believe that Mr Al Sabah held an account with KFH, or with any of the other banks against which he obtained TPD orders. It also argues that the judgment debt was itself not genuine and it was “not fanciful” to suppose that Mr Al Haroun and Mr Al Sabah “might combine with themselves to create a judgment debt”, as they had combined in the Swiss proceedings.[165]I do not accept those arguments. There is nothing to suggest that the claim in the 2018 proceedings was not a genuine one. And, although I am not deciding whether Mr Al Sabah in fact had an account at KFH at the relevant time, I am satisfied, having heard him, that Mr Al Haroun believed that there was such an account, or at least that there might have been. That is the whole basis of the 2023 proceedings: i.e. that KFH has concealed the account because of Mr Al Sabah’s VVIP status. Mr Al Haroun has commissioned and served expert evidence on the question of what KFH’s records show about the existence of the account, and he relied on the 30 August 2016 email referred to above as direct evidence of it.[166]KFH argues that, when it failed to respond properly to the initial TPD order, Mr Al Haroun took the opportunity to take advantage of its error by engineering a situation where he could get a contempt order (and later a default judgment) before KFH knew what was going on.[167]I regard that as somewhat far-fetched. Mr Al Haroun’s first reaction to KFH’s failure was not to embark immediately on covert contempt proceedings but to contact KFH’s legal department to press them (through Mr Chami) to comply with the order and to warn them of the risk of contempt if they did not. If KFH is right, Mr Al Haroun must have formed the intention to pursue his scheme only after that conversation.[168]Mr Al Haroun’s apparent financial interest was to recover his judgment debt by obtaining and enforcing a TPD order against KFH and Mr Al Sabah. Even if Mr Al Haroun was generally hostile to KFH and to the Kuwaiti royal family, and even if he was motivated by revenge or grudge, the possibility of KFH incurring a fine in a comparatively modest amount (as mentioned above, Mr Al Haroun later suggested, and the court imposed, a fine “in the low six-figure range”, so much less than the judgment debt) was not an obviously preferable outcome. The order of Linden J, in particular, put him in an advantageous position as regards the collection of his debt; it would be somewhat perverse to obtain the order against KFH but then not serve it.[169]Concealing the contempt proceedings would also be a high risk strategy. Any contempt sanction would eventually come to KFH’s attention when the court sought to enforce it (as it did). At that point, if Mr Al Haroun had concealed the proceedings, there would inevitably be a reckoning with a detailed investigation and trial, as there has been (and I note that it was Mr Al Haroun, not KFH, who insisted on oral evidence and cross-examination). Mr Al Haroun also made the reasonable point that he would not have wanted to risk his hard-won asylum status.[170]It is perhaps easier to see a potential motive in relation to the 2023 proceedings, where pretending but withholding service of the claim form would give Mr Al Haroun the opportunity to enter default judgment. However, a well-informed litigant (as Mr Al Haroun appears to be) would appreciate that KFH would inevitably apply to set the judgment aside as soon as it was received. Conclusion[171]I return to the ultimate question of whether the documents were in fact served on KFH by Mr Al Haroun. I have already set out many of my findings on the individual issues and allegations. However, since they are interlinked and self-reinforcing/self-undermining, I have cross-checked each finding against the evidence as a whole, taking into account the forensic and similar fact evidence relied on by KFH, and the respective motives of KFH and Mr Al Haroun to act as each says the other did.[172]KFH’s strongest argument, in my view, is the improbability that such a large number of deliveries could have failed to come to the attention of senior management at the time and could not later be found when searched for, particularly when some of the materials delivered were supposedly marked as including important court documents. KFH can also point to the fact that Mr Al Haroun is not an honest litigant given that I have found that in one case he forged evidence of service (the 23 June 2023 Addison Lee delivery confirmation) and in another case filed false evidence of service (the photograph of Ms Deen).[173]As I have explained, however, the logic of KFH’s argument is weakened by the fact that many sets of documents must have been received by KFH from Mr Al Haroun, by courier and post, and they have not been located. It follows either that they were all decoys concocted by Mr Al Haroun to conceal the proceedings, or, despite KFH’s position that it would be inconceivable, there must have been an internal failure in KFH’s process for handling incoming legal documents.[174]I do not find the question an easy one. Each party asks the court to accept a version of events that, in each case, can be argued to be inherently unlikely. However, I have decided that on balance the more likely explanation is an internal failure within KFH rather than concealment by Mr Al Haroun (even though I cannot say precisely what was the nature of the failure). My principal reasons, drawing on the points above, are these: i) The scheme alleged by KFH is extensive and complicated, requiring significant effort and planning, as well as considerable risk. KFH has not identified a plausible motive for embarking on such a scheme, given the apparent balance of benefit and risk, and bearing in mind that it would have come to light eventually and resulted in an inquiry of the kind before me. ii) I am not persuaded by KFH’s argument that Mr Al Haroun must have created and sent documents that were in effect, decoys, i.e. irrelevant documents prepared for the purpose of creating a record of service without alerting KFH to the proceedings or arousing any suspicion about what was going on. That would be a particularly complicated and risky exercise. KFH has not found or identified any such document. iii) On KFH’s case, Mr Al Haroun (or H&C) would also have had to create sham documents (i.e. documents that were prepared but never sent), such as the letters addressed to KFH dated 14 April 2023 and 20 July 2023 and the envelope purportedly containing the contempt application. iv) Mr Al Haroun’s conduct in forging a document and falsifying evidence is serious. However, it does not follow that he must have been intending to disguise the absence of service. It is also possible, and, in my view, more likely, that he was improperly attempting to secure his position against KFH by “improving” the evidence of service. In respect of most of the materials relied on as evidence of service, there is no evidence sufficient to find forgery. v) KFH searched for hard copy documents in the post room and the desks of Ms Deen and Ms Demanuel. It did not however search the entire office for hard copy documents (presumably that would not have been practical) and was therefore dependent on staff identifying them as part of the investigation. It is conceivable that the served documents reached only a junior member of staff who did not come forward. KFH’s failure to find or identify documents that it did receive (e.g. by courier) is also indicative of a failure of internal process. vi) KFH’s failure to understand its obligations under the TPD order and its unexplained loss of the post room book are both matters that diminish confidence in the rigour of its procedures. vii) Whilst I have rejected some significant parts of Mr Al Haroun’s evidence, I accept his evidence that he did not intend to conceal the proceedings from KFH.

Disposal

[175]I decide the issues identified in paragraph 3 of Master Gidden’s order as follows: i) I find that KFH was served with the documents which Mr Al Haroun claims to have served in the 2018 proceedings; ii) I find that, with the exception of the interim TPD Order, those documents did not come to the attention of Mr Joyce, Mr Tamim or Ms Azharian or any individual of similar seniority at KFH.[176]The application by KFH to set aside or revoke the contempt order (and related orders) for fraud or lack of service therefore fails.[177]The application for a re-hearing of the contempt application under CPR 23.11(2), is not dependent on fraud or lack of service. I have considered the specific matters that Teare J identified in Ivanhoe as relevant on such an application. i) First, there is no doubt that KFH acted promptly when senior management discovered the contempt order. ii) Second, if the contempt application were reheard, it would be open to KFH to argue that its breaches of the orders of Master Cook dated 30 March 2023 and Linden J dated 25 May 2023 (which I do not think can themselves be disputed) were not deliberate but were the consequence of a combination of its misunderstanding of its obligations under the TPD order and the internal failure that led to Mr Joyce and senior management being unaware of those orders. It might also argue that a contempt sanction should not be imposed for breach of an order that was not served personally. Those matters would at least go to mitigation and penalty. There is, therefore, a reasonable prospect that the order on a reheard contempt application would be different if the court heard argument and received evidence from KFH. iii) As to whether there was a good reason for not attending the hearing, KFH’s non-attendance was not deliberate but, as I have found, was the result of an internal failure (albeit that KFH has never accepted that and has instead insisted, wrongly, that it was never served).[178]The power under CPR 23.11 is to be exercised sparingly. However, I regard the circumstances of the present case as exceptional. I take into account the serious and quasi-criminal nature of a finding of contempt and the importance of the principle (as shown by the decision in InPlayer) that an alleged contemnor should have a fair opportunity to understand and address the charges against him. I am confident that KFH’s senior management would never have intended an application against KFH for a contempt sanction to go unanswered, or to allow the court to proceed having formed an impression that KFH’s senior management had deliberately ignored court orders. It is questionable whether KFH’s reason for not attending can be described as a good one on my findings. However, a good reason for non-attendance is not a condition to relief under CPR 23.11; it is a matter to be weighed in the balance.[179]In those circumstances, and notwithstanding that I have found that KFH was properly served with the contempt application, I will exercise my discretion under CPR 23.11 to set aside the contempt order and grant permission to the parties to re-list the hearing, at which the court can consider whether to re-grant the order or make a different (or no) order . In my view, that strikes a fair balance between the interests of the parties, and of the court in compliance with its orders.[180]There is a further consideration as to the timing of any re-hearing. If, as Mr Al Haroun argues, Mr Al Sabah did have an account with KFH, then KFH’s failure to respond to the orders of Master Cook and Linden J might be seen by the court in a different light. Since that issue is raised and will be determined in the 2023 proceedings, I am minded to direct that any re-hearing of the contempt application should await the disposal of those proceedings, but I will permit the parties to make submissions on that point.[181]I find that Mr Al Haroun served the claim form on KFH in the manner described in his evidence as set out in paragraph 90 above. The application by KFH to set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.2 therefore fails. KFH pointed out that the application for default judgment, made on 29 September, was technically premature on Mr Al Haroun’s case because under CPR 6.14 the claim form was deemed to be served on the second business day after being left at KFH. However, KFH said that it did not take a point on that, and judgment was anyway not entered by the court until 7 November 2023.[182]I have a discretion to set aside the default judgment under CPR 13.3 if KFH has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. That condition is clearly met. The claim depends, amongst other things, on the controversial issue of the existence of an account of Mr Al Sabah with KFH at the date of the TPD order, and on KFH having conspired to conceal it. It will very likely turn on contentious factual and expert evidence, both parties having served expert reports. KFH did not pursue at the hearing its application to strike out the claim on the basis that there was no such account, but I do not think that it can seriously be argued (and I did not understand Mr Al Haroun to be arguing) that KFH’s defence has no real prospect of success.[183]I am satisfied that KFH made its application to set aside promptly for the purpose of CPR 13.3(2).[184]Neither party made any submissions on the exercise of the discretion under CPR 13.3. In my view, this is a clear case for setting aside the default judgment. Irrespective of how the judgment came to be entered, it would be unfair to allow Mr Al Haroun to retain the benefit of a large default judgment where KFH has a real prospect of defending the claim and intends to do so, and where it did not deliberately ignore the proceedings.[185]Therefore: i) I set aside the default judgment in the 2023 proceedings pursuant to CPR 13.3. ii) I set aside the contempt order of Mr ter Haar KC dated 27 July 2023 pursuant to CPR 23.11 and grant permission to re-list a hearing of the contempt application.[186]I will hear the parties on any further or consequential matters and on the form of the order.