Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP v HRH Prince Hussam Bin Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

For the bankruptcy jurisdictional test in section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986, a debtor must have had a place of residence in England and Wales during the relevant three-year period. The inquiry concerns whether premises were a place of residence for the debtor. A mere expectation that a third party would permit the debtor to stay as a guest is insufficient, particularly where the debtor did not request, make use of, or intend to reside at the property. An earlier residence does not continue by default. The statute focuses on the relevant period, and any inference from earlier residence is factual. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed interpretation was hopelessly wide and the factual findings gave the appeal no realistic prospect of success.

Mobile Telecommunications Company KSCP petitioned for the bankruptcy of Prince Hussam on debts arising from arbitral awards. The High Court, through Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had not shown that Prince Hussam had a place of residence in England and Wales between 1 June 2019 and 1 June 2022 under section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986: [2025] EWHC 85 (Ch).

The petitioner sought permission to appeal, challenging the interpretation of place of residence, the relevance of intention and permission to use family property, the absence of a finding of abandonment, and factual findings concerning property availability and council-tax registration. The central issue was whether an expectation of permission to stay in premises owned by another, without actual use or intention to reside, could satisfy the statutory jurisdictional test.

Permission to appeal refused. Snowden LJ gave the judgment, with Whipple LJ and Newey LJ agreeing.

1. The Court would not interfere with the Judge’s findings that the New London Properties were not a pool of residences available to Prince Hussam and that he was unaware of his council-tax registration at York House. The Judge had heard live evidence and made credibility findings. Earlier provisional decisions based on written evidence did not create a realistic prospect that those findings would be overturned.
2. Under section 265(2)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Act 1986, the question is whether the premises were a place of residence for the debtor during the relevant period. It is insufficient that premises owned by a third party would probably have been made available to the debtor as a guest if he had asked. That was particularly so where he had not asked, had not visited the jurisdiction, and had no intention of residing there. The Court agreed with the reasoning in Lakatamia Shipping v Su, [2021] EWHC 1866 (Ch).
3. There was no legal rule that an earlier place of residence continued until formally abandoned. The statute asks whether the debtor had a place of residence during the relevant period. Any inference from an earlier residence is a question of fact. Re Nordenfelt, [1895] 1 QB 151, was correctly understood as treating abandonment as a descriptive term, not a legal term of art requiring a separate finding.
4. The Court observed that the High Court’s analysis did not clearly distinguish resident, ordinarily resident, and having a place of residence in their different statutory contexts. That analysis could have been the subject of contrary argument, but any interpretation capable of changing the result on the established facts would have been hopelessly wide.

The High Court’s orders dismissing the bankruptcy petition therefore stood.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Permission to appeal against the High Court’s orders was refused. The proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
2. High Court, Insolvency and Companies List. Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs, sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed the bankruptcy petition by orders dated 22 and 23 January 2025, following the judgment reported at [2025] EWHC 85 (Ch).
3. Earlier High Court proceedings. ICCJ Barber refused to set aside service of the petition at [2023] EWHC 1144 (Ch). Bacon J subsequently refused permission to appeal at [2024] EWHC 1724 (Ch).