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

I am not persuaded that any liability which QNB might have in respect of the January 2013 seizure would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement, such that any such claim would have to be pursued in Qatar or the high threshold for not enforcing that agreement overcome. The alleged presentation of the cheque after the seizure order had been made and revoked, and the relevant damage done and the cause of action complete, is not enough.

I accept the draft Particulars of Claim provide no basis for the allegations made against QNB Capital, which are not arguable. The highest the pleading puts matters is that “the Claimant believes that the Second Defendant was or may have been involved … but the Claimant is unable to plead further pending disclosure”. That does not allege, still less support an arguable claim against QNB Capital, and indeed the draft Particulars of Claim do not plead that QNB Capital was a party to the conspiracies pleaded or the seizure and its aftermath.

I have not found it necessary to consider whether the pleaded facts reveal an arguable case against QNB itself arising from Mr Al Emadi’s involvement.