Claim No: CL-2024-000435 - [2025] EWHC 1588 (Comm)

the exclusive Qatari jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement between Ettizan, Mr Al Haroun and QNB; and

the LCIA arbitration agreement in the HBTF Agreement between Ettizan and QNB.

I am not persuaded that the conspiracy claim relating to the January 2013 seizure order falls within the jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement. The reliance on the fact of the presentation of the cheque after the seizure to support QNB’s alleged involvement in the prior conspiracy is not sufficient to engage the jurisdiction clause when the dispute, properly characterised does not (see by analogy Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL [2023] UKSC 32, albeit in the context of s.9 of the Arbitration Act 1996).

Had a cause of action been advanced premised on the presentation of a forged cheque in March 2013, I accept that it is likely that this would have fallen within the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement, although it would be necessary to consider the precise cause of action and how it was formulated before reaching a concluded view. The Loan Agreement provided for the provision of a guarantee cheque from Mr Al Haroun in the sum of QR 25.000.000 (clause 3) and imposes various obligations on Mr Al Haroun as guarantor, and it is not disputed that he is a party to the Loan Agreement in that capacity. A claim that a cheque of QR 25.000.000 from Mr Al Haroun’s cheque book was presented with a forged signature is clearly a dispute arising out of the Loan Agreement. However, no such claim has been pleaded, and, at the jurisdictional stage, it is the facts as pleaded which are key (HRH Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell plc [2021] UKSC 3, [22] and [103]-[106]).

I do not see how the claim in relation to the March 2014 Letter falls within LCIA arbitration agreement in the HBTF Agreement, because the pleaded complaint is the procuring of a breach of the SPA, and the claim is that of KRIC which is not a party to the HBTF Agreement.