Al-Aggad -v- Al-Aggad

Business and Property CourtsCommercial CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionJudgment

Claim Number: CL-2022-000230

In The High Court Of Justice
Business And Property Courts Of England And Wales
Kings Bench Division Commercial Court

6 October 2023

Mr Justice Foxton

Rana Al-Aggad
(1) Talal Al-Aggad
(2) Tarek Al-Aggad
(3) Lama Al-Aggad


UPON permission having been granted to the Claimant (“C”) to serve the First and Second
Defendant (“D1+D2”) out of the jurisdiction, and to do so by alternative method(s) of service by the Order of Mr Justice Butcher dated 11 August 2022 (“Service Method Order”).

AND UPON the application made by D1+D2 by notice dated 14 October 2022 seeking (amongst other things) to set aside the Service Method Order (“D1+D2’s Part 11 Application”) and the application made by the Third Defendant (“D3”) by notice dated 11 October 2023 (“D3’s Part 11 Application”) (together, the “Part 11 Applications” and where collectively referenced, “Ds”) having been listed together for hearing on 16-18 October 2023 (“October Hearing”).

AND UPON the application made by C by notice dated 7 September 2023 seeking to adduce rejoinder evidence (as defined therein) and extend the confidentiality regime for purposes of the October Hearing (“C’s Permission Application”).

AND UPON the application made by D1+D2 by notice dated 21 September 2023 to adjourn the substantive matters listed at the October Hearing in order properly to determine various procedural issues (the “Brothers’ Applications”).

AND UPON the Court considering the evidence and correspondence on the Court file.

AND UPON the Court directing that an urgent directions hearing should take place in relation to the listing of C’s Permission Application and the Brothers’ Applications on 6 October 2023.

AND UPON the application made by D3 by notice dated 5 October 2023 challenging whether the claim form had been validly served upon her on account of C having withheld her personal address without the Court’s permission (the “Claim Form Address Application”).

AND UPON HEARING counsel for D1+D2, counsel for D3 and counsel for C.


Hearing of the Part 11 Applications

  1. Subject to paragraph 2 below, the Part 11 Applications shall be adjourned from the October Hearing and are to be relisted for an expedited hearing to take place on dates in January or February 2024, with a time estimate of 3 days (including 1 day of judicial pre-reading) (“Adjourned Part 11 Hearing”). The parties are to attend upon listing as soon as is practicable so that the relevant dates can be confirmed.
  2. D1+D2’s challenge to the Service Method Order shall be heard at the October Hearing alongside the issues set out in paragraph 4 below.

Open Justice and Confidentiality

  1. The current confidentiality and privacy regime (the “Confidentiality Regime”) applicable to these proceedings pursuant to paragraphs 11-15 of the Order of Mr Justice Butcher dated 11 August 2022 (as amended by the Order of Mr Justice Calver dated 31 March 2023) shall continue to apply until the October Hearing, at which point it will be reconsidered as set out below.

The October Hearing: Matters for Discussion

  1. The October Hearing shall be utilised to resolve the following matters (in addition to paragraph 2 above):

(a) Whether the parties should be permitted to rely upon the expert evidence of the law and practice of (a) Saudi Arabia; (b) Jordan; (c) Canada filed respectively in C’s responsive and Ds’ reply evidence on the Jurisdiction Applications;

(b) Whether C should be permitted to rely by way of rejoinder upon the (additional) expert evidence of the law and practice of (a) Saudi Arabia; (b) Canada, as well as factual evidence from C’s Canadian lawyer, and if so, in whole or in part, and on what terms?

(c) If yes, whether Ds or some of them should be permitted to adduce sur-rejoinder evidence to complete the evidential record, and if so, upon which issues (including expert issues) and with which guillotine provisions?

(d) In respect of open justice / confidentiality:

(i) Is the Court satisfied that the general framework of the Confidentiality Regime is consistent with open justice?

(ii) Has C made good its case that in general the Confidentiality Regime is or remains justified in this case?

(iii) If yes, and in connection with paragraph 4(c), does the Court grant permission for Ds to provide (currently) confidential information to: (1) Ds’ Saudi law experts; (2) D1+D2’s Canadian law expert, and if so, on what terms?

(iv) How should the Court case manage the practicalities of the Confidentiality Regime (or amended version thereof) insofar as it decides this remains justified (a) prior to; and (b) post the October Hearing, in terms of bundles, skeletons, public vs confidential judgments, transcripts, etc.

(e) Are there any other case management tools which would assist the Court prior to the Adjourned Part 11 Hearing, e.g. the preparation of a cross referenced list of issues? If so, what are these and which deadlines should they be supplied by?

(f) The Claim Form Address Application.


  1. The costs of and occasioned by C’s Permission Application and the Brothers’ Application (including the directions hearing) shall be costs in the Part 11 Applications.
  2. This Order shall be served by Jones Day.