Hamad Al Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC & Anor

Claims governed by foreign law may be summarily dismissed where reliable evidence establishes that they are time-barred, belong to another claimant, or disclose no realistic prospect of success. A claim cannot circumvent the finality of an arbitration award by alleging that a party procured a contractual breach through evidence deployed in the arbitration; the proper remedy is ordinarily a challenge to the award. For a forum non conveniens stay, the claimant must show by cogent, positive and objective evidence a real risk that the foreign forum is unavailable or will not provide justice. Courts begin with an assumption of comity and judicial independence. A claimant’s inability to attend personally does not establish unavailability where remote participation or representation by an authorised attorney is realistically available.

The claimant brought proceedings against Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLC concerning alleged conspiracies, dishonest assistance, misuse of corporate assets, presentation of forged cheques, and a letter deployed in arbitration proceedings concerning the acquisition of shares in a Jordanian bank.

The court determined applications to amend the Particulars of Claim, for reverse summary judgment or strike-out, and challenging jurisdiction. The principal issues were limitation under Qatari law, the claimant’s standing to recover losses suffered by companies, the viability of the proposed claim concerning evidence used in arbitration, the scope of contractual jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, and whether Qatar was an unavailable or unjust forum.

1. Summary disposition. The claims were summarily dismissed. The proposed amendments did not establish claims with a realistic prospect of success.
2. Limitation. Claims in delict under Qatari law were subject to the limitation period in Article 219 of the Qatari Civil Code. Time ran from the claimant’s knowledge of the damage and the person responsible, subject to the 15-year longstop. The alleged seizure-related claims were plainly time-barred. The claim concerning the March 2014 letter was also time-barred, even if time began only when the Swiss challenge to the arbitration award failed in February 2017.
3. Standing. Losses arising from the alleged seizure were losses of Ettizan, not personal losses of the claimant. The evidence did not establish any viable derivative or creditor claim, particularly after Ettizan’s dissolution and liquidation. The claim concerning the arbitration letter belonged to KRIC, the contracting party, and no derivative claim had been pleaded.
4. Arbitration evidence. Even assuming that the March 2014 letter was false and dishonest, it was not arguable that deployment of false evidence by one arbitrating party was actionable by the losing party as a breach of the SPA. The appropriate remedy was to challenge the award through the procedures available before the supervisory court. A damages claim would undermine the finality of arbitration awards and conflict with the obligation to give effect to awards under the New York Convention.
5. Jurisdiction and forum. The seizure-related conspiracy claim, properly characterised, did not fall within the Loan Agreement’s exclusive Qatari jurisdiction clause. A properly pleaded claim concerning presentation of a forged guarantee cheque probably would have done so. The claim concerning the March 2014 letter did not fall within the HBTF Agreement’s LCIA arbitration clause because KRIC was not a party to that agreement.
6. Forum non conveniens. Applying Spiliada, Qatar was clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum. The claimant failed at the second stage to prove by cogent, positive and objective evidence a real risk that Qatar was unavailable or would deny justice. Remote participation and representation by an attorney were realistically available, and evidence of political interference was insufficient to displace the assumption of comity. Had the claims not been dismissed, the proceedings would have been stayed.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.