{"id":283377,"date":"2026-06-18T06:45:42","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T06:45:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=283377"},"modified":"2026-06-18T06:45:42","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T06:45:42","slug":"court-blocks-bankruptcy-petition-service-on-qatari-businessman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/court-blocks-bankruptcy-petition-service-on-qatari-businessman\/","title":{"rendered":"Court blocks bankruptcy petition service on Qatari businessman"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Judge rules creditor could not use alternative service within England to bypass rules on serving a debtor abroad.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The High Court has delivered a very expensive reminder that bankruptcy proceedings are subject to the same fundamental jurisdictional principles as other civil claims, setting aside an order that allowed a Dubai bank to serve a \u00a316.3 million bankruptcy petition on a Qatari businessman through alternative means in England. In his judgment handed down on 16 June, Judge Greenwood ruled that because Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari was not shown to be present within the jurisdiction, and no permission to serve abroad had been obtained, service of the petition was ineffective.<\/p>\n

The background<\/h3>\n

The case initially concerned litigation in the United Arab Emirates, where the Dubai Court of First Instance entered judgment in favour of Emirates NBD Bank on 5 October 2023 in relation to a debt of around \u00a316.3 million<\/a>. After surviving two appeals in Dubai, the bank successfully sought to enforce the judgment in England, obtaining default judgment against Al Kuwari on 7 February 2025.<\/p>\n

The ensuing bankruptcy petition was the next step in the bank\u2019s efforts to recover the debt.<\/p>\n

Before presenting the petition, the bank served a statutory demand at three adjoining Queen Anne\u2019s Gate properties in Westminster. Those properties became central to the jurisdictional dispute because the bank argued that they constituted a place of residence for Al Kuwari in England for the purposes of section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The bank therefore attempted to serve the bankruptcy petition personally at the properties in July 2025 but, although a process server appears to have photographed Al Kuwari entering one of them, attempts to serve the petition personally proved unsuccessful.<\/p>\n

The bank applied for permission to serve by alternative means and, on 8 August 2025, Judge Agnello granted an order permitting service through an advertisement in the London Gazette and by email. The petition was served pursuant to that order on 12 August 2025 and Al Kuwari subsequently applied to set the order aside.<\/p>\n

In the High Court<\/h3>\n

Al Kuwari argued that he had already returned to Qatar by the time the order was made and that, because the bank had not sought permission to serve the petition abroad, the order was ineffective. Citing various case law, he contended that alternative service could not be used to sidestep the rules governing service outside the jurisdiction. He further argued that the bank had failed to show that personal service was impracticable because it had made no attempt to serve him in Qatar despite knowing that he lived and worked there.<\/p>\n

The bank countered that bankruptcy jurisdiction derives from section 265 of the Insolvency Act rather than from service, maintaining that there was a good arguable case that Al Kuwari was actually in England when the alternative service order was made and that he had left England knowing of the petition and the bank\u2019s attempts to serve it.<\/p>\n

The decision<\/h3>\n

Judge Greenwood sided with Al Kuwari, holding: \u201cThe Bank\u2019s argument was wrong because it confused two different meanings of the word \u2018jurisdiction\u2019,\u201d explaining that, while section 265 governs whether the court may ultimately make a bankruptcy order, valid service of the petition remains \u201cthe foundation of the court\u2019s adjudicatory jurisdiction\u201d over the debtor. The judge observed that bankruptcy petitions are subject to the same territorial limits as other civil proceedings, and a debtor who is abroad cannot be served by alternative means within England unless permission to serve outside the jurisdiction has first been obtained.<\/p>\n

The court found that the bank had failed to establish a good arguable case that Al Kuwari was present in England between 8 and 12 August 2025. Although he owned property in London and travelled to England regularly, the evidence showed that he was based in Doha, where he lived with his family and conducted his business affairs. In fact, there was \u201cno evidence\u201d that he was physically present in England during the relevant period.<\/p>\n

Judge Greenwood further noted: \u201cIt is very difficult to find that personal service in Qatar was impracticable, where it was not even attempted.\u201d<\/p>\n

Allowing the application, the judge concluded that the bank had taken a procedural risk by seeking an alternative service order without first obtaining permission to serve abroad. The alternative service order was set aside and service of the bankruptcy petition declared ineffective.<\/p>\n

The parties<\/h3>\n

In Emirates NBD Bank (petitioner) v Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari (respondent), <\/em>the petitioner was represented by William Edwards KC of 3VB, instructed by DWF (Middle East). The respondent was represented by Alexander Milner KC of Fountain Court Chambers, instructed by Signature Litigation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

Source link <\/a>
\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n