Hadi Kalo v Bankmed Sal
[2023] EWHC 2606 (Comm)
Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL
30 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1975 (KB)
High Court
A wealthy man is suing a Lebanese bank in England, but the bank says the case should be in Lebanon. The man needs documents from the bank to prove the bank operates in England, so he asked the court to order the bank to share them. The judge said the bank must share *some* documents to be fair, but not all of them because that would take too long. The case is about whether the bank is doing business in England, which decides where the case should be.
Key Facts
- •Sheikh Mohammed Omar Kassem Alesayi (Claimant) is a Saudi Arabian national and customer of Bank Audi S.A.L. (Defendant), a Lebanese bank.
- •The Claimant seeks a mandatory order from the English Court to transfer his funds from Lebanon to Switzerland.
- •The Defendant disputes the English Court's jurisdiction, relying on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the banking contract favoring Lebanese courts.
- •The Claimant argues that the English Court has jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982) as a consumer contract.
- •The Claimant's application is for disclosure of documents to establish the English Court's jurisdiction.
- •The Defendant opposes disclosure, arguing it would lead to a 'mini-trial' and that the Claimant already has sufficient evidence for a plausible jurisdiction claim.
Legal Principles
Jurisdiction in consumer contracts under the CJJA 1982.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s. 15B and 15E
Disclosure orders in jurisdiction disputes are exceptional and should be proportionate.
Kaefer Aislamientos SA de CV v AMS Drilling Mexico SA [2019] 1 WLR 3514; Kalo v Bankmed SAL [2024] I.L.Pr 7
Jurisdiction applications should be determined swiftly and avoid mini-trials.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] A.C. 460; Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2020] AC 1045
Specific disclosure is ordered in exceptional circumstances and only if reasonably necessary for the just disposal of the jurisdiction issue.
Vava v Anglo African South Africa [2012] 2 C.L.C. 684; Rome v Punjab National Bank (No 1) [1989] 2 All ER 136
CPR 31.14 allows inspection of documents mentioned in pleadings or witness statements.
CPR 31.14
The meaning of 'mentioned' in CPR 31.14 is broad, encompassing direct allusions or references to documents or classes of documents.
Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1099
Outcomes
The court granted a partial disclosure order.
The court found an information asymmetry between the parties, with the Defendant having superior access to information crucial to determining jurisdiction. The court balanced the need for proportionality and a swift resolution with the need for a just determination, considering the evidence already presented and the relevance of the requested documents.
Disclosure was ordered for documents relating to 'Crossbridge Capital' and 'the London Desk'.
These were considered crucial to determining whether the Defendant directed activities to the UK, a key element of the jurisdiction dispute.
Disclosure was granted under CPR 31.14 for some documents but refused for others.
The court applied the principle that CPR 31.14 requires a genuine mention of documents in the evidence and ruled that a reference to a class of documents asserted to exist by the opposing party was insufficient.