Scott Halborg & Anor v Albert Halborg & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1190 (KB)
Asturion Foundation v Aljawharah Bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alibrahim
26 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 757 (Ch)
High Court
A foundation sued a princess over a property. The judge, after hearing experts on foreign law, sided with the princess. The princess gets most of her legal costs, but the foundation can appeal. The case shows how important expert witness testimony is in legal disputes involving other countries' laws.
Key Facts
- •Claim by Asturion Foundation (Claimant) against Aljawharah Bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alibrahim (Defendant) to recover title to Kenstead Hall.
- •Dispute centered on Liechtenstein law concerning the Foundation's purposes and a board member's authority.
- •Expert evidence was polarized, with the judge preferring the Defendant's expert, Dr. Bosch.
- •The case involved subsidiary English law questions regarding section 26 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
- •Defendant also had fallback arguments based on Liechtenstein Civil Code Article 187a and ostensible authority.
- •Claimant had secondary and tertiary claims for rescission, unjust enrichment, and knowing receipt.
- •Defendant's costs amounted to approximately £6.6 million.
Legal Principles
Evaluation of foreign law, particularly where dependent on expert evidence, is akin to factual determination.
Perry v Lopag Trust Reg [2023] UKPC 16, [2023] 1 WLR 3494 at [14]
Section 26 of the Land Registration Act 2002.
Land Registration Act 2002
Liechtenstein Civil Code Article 187a (regarding representative authority).
Liechtenstein Civil Code
English law doctrine of ostensible authority.
English Common Law
Principles of unjust enrichment and knowing receipt.
English Common Law
CPR rule 44.2(6)(g) (pre-judgment interest).
Civil Procedure Rules
CPR rule 40.8(1)(b) (postponement of judgment debt interest).
Civil Procedure Rules
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
No real prospect of overturning the evaluation of evidence; points raised were largely considered and rejected at trial.
Stay pending appeal granted.
Balance of justice requires maintaining the status quo to avoid irreparable harm to the Foundation if the appeal is successful.
Defendant (Princess) awarded 85% of her claimed costs.
Defendant was the overall successful party, despite losing on some secondary arguments. Deduction made to account for Defendant's less successful points.
Payment on account of 50% of recoverable costs ordered.
Not resisted by the Claimant.
Pre-judgment interest awarded at 2% above base rate (excluding period of procedural suspense).
Compensate Defendant for costs incurred over a long period.
Accrual of judgment debt interest suspended for three months.
Allow Claimant time to consider the detailed costs bill and ensure proportionality.
Similar Cases
Dale Heathcote & Anor v Asertis Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 242
Flavio de Carvalho Pinto Viegas & Ors v José Luis Cutrale & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2778 (Comm)
Mustafa Erdem Baldudak v Mark Matteo (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 301 (Ch)
Suzanne Merrills v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 1788 (Admin)