The Judgment in Gulf International Bank BSC v Sheik Badr Fahad Ibrahim Aldwood [2019] EWHC 1666 (QB) concerned a claim brought in the English Courts by a Bahrain bank (with branch in Saudi Arabia) against a Saudi citizen who, following the imminent failure of Saudi companies whose debts he had personally guaranteed, had recently moved to the UK. The Judge made two principal decisions.

First, he ruled that, despite the existence of a choice of Court agreement in favour of a non- EU/Lugano country (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia):

  • the English Courts nevertheless had jurisdiction in respect of the substantive claim because the Defendant was domiciled in the UK; and
  • as a consequence, pursuant to the application of the EU principle in Owusu v Jackson following the recasting of the Brussels I Regulation, the English Courts were unable to decline to hear that claim or stay the proceedings.

Secondly, the Judge discharged the English worldwide freezing order which the Claimant had previously obtained against the Defendant on a "without notice" basis in support of the English proceedings. That was because the Defendant's behaviour, whilst being less than admirable, nonetheless provided insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation, or unjustified dealing, of assets.

Crucially in relation to the jurisdiction issue, the Judge said that he could not have declined to hear the claim or stayed the proceedings even if the Saudi jurisdiction clause was exclusive. It is this view which may spark controversy amongst global lawyers.

If correct, it would mean that where civil or commercial proceedings against an EU/Lugano- domiciled Defendant are commenced first in the Courts of an EU/Lugano country (i.e. an EU Member State or Iceland, Switzerland or Norway), such Courts will not, and indeed cannot, honour an exclusive choice of Court agreement in favour of a non- EU/Lugano country by declining jurisdiction or staying their proceedings unless (in the case of the Courts of an EU Member State) the non- EU/Lugano country selected by the parties is, like the EU, bound by the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements of 2005 and that Convention applies in the circumstances. Only Mexico, Montenegro and Singapore are currently so bound. Although China, Ukraine and the USA have also signed that Convention, it is not yet in force in those countries.

Downloads – Download Document

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2019. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.