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

At this point, I turn to the history of the proceedings which has been no happier than the history of the commercial transactions proceeding them. The claim form was issued on 14 March 2024 in the King’s Bench Division. Master Eastman asked for the case to be transferred to the Commercial Court. I made an order accepting the case into the Commercial Court, a decision I have had cause to contemplate in the course of this hearing.

The causes of action advanced at that stage were that in sending the letter for use in the SSIF arbitration, the Defendants had made a false statement and breached confidentiality obligations (presumably owed under the HBTF Agreement). There may also have been a claim based on the proceedings brought by QNB against Mr Al Haroun in Qatar based on the allegedly forged cheque, although, if so, the cause of action relied upon is not clear.

The Defendants brought a jurisdiction challenge, and a summary judgment/strike out application, for which directions were given, and a CMC fixed. Eventually, the Court directed that certain of the issues raised by the applications be determined as preliminary issues, and gave directions for the service of evidence.

The preliminary issues which have been ordered (and which reflected the formulation of Mr Al Haroun’s claims at that time) are:

The Defendants sought and obtained extensions of time in relation to the filing of their evidence. Mr Al Haroun applied to set one of those extensions aside. That application was refused by Dias J, who noted that in the witness statements filed by Mr Al Haroun and his solicitor in support of the application, and in associated correspondence, several false case citations had been given – either to cases which did not exist, or which did not support the propositions for which they were cited. Dias J referred the case to Linden J for consideration under the court’s Hamid jurisdiction, by which the court can address the conduct of legal professionals who have failed to comply with their legal duties in court proceedings (R (Hamid) v SSHD [2012] EWHC 3070 (Admin)).

The outcome of the Hamid hearing is reported at [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin). The Divisional Court (the President and Jeremy Johnson J) accepted that Mr Al Haroun did not intend to mislead the court, and noted “his candour, his apology and his acceptance of responsibility” ([79]). It is apparent that it was Mr Al Haroun who had, through inappropriate use of AI, been the source of all the hallucinatory references cited both by himself and his solicitor, indicating a “hands on” involvement in aspects of litigation which are normally the domain of the lawyer, even though Mr Al Haroun is not legally qualified.

The directions given by the court for the determination of the preliminary issues included directions for the service of expert evidence. Mr Al Haroun had sought to serve multiple expert reports, and Picken J had ruled that the reports served without permission were not admissible. There was an attempt by Mr Al Haroun to refer to one of those reports at the hearing. However, in circumstances in which those reports were not in evidence, and the Defendants had not served evidence responding to them, I have had no regard to them.

The directions gave permission for experts on Qatari law. Mr Al Haroun served a report in the name of Professor Youssef Sayed Sayed Awad on 9 May 2025 (“the First Report”), in the form of what was said to be an English translation of an Arabic original. The responsive report of Dr Ashraf Feshawi served on 29 May 2025 stated of the First Report:

“… the vast majority of the articles cited are incorrectly relied on and not relevant to the subject matter he claims they regulate. When comparing the actual text of these articles with the interpretations provided, there is a clear disconnect. The provisions are not relevant to the points being argued, and address fundamentally different legal topics than the ones mentioned by Prof Awad.”

Further:

The issues raised by Dr Feshawi and the concerns about the First Report generally led to questions being asked of Mr Al Haroun and his previous solicitors about the provenance of the First Report, the responses to which did not resolve matters. That led to repeated efforts by the Defendants’ solicitors to contact Professor Awad at the law firm with which he is linked for the purposes of getting him to confirm that he had prepared the report. While Mr Al Haroun describes these attempts as intimidation, they are understandable against the background of the events which led to the Hamid referral and the issues raised by Dr Feshawi.

On 30 May 2025, Mr Al Haroun’s solicitors withdrew from the case as a result of what Mr Al Haroun described as “financial and logistical constraints.” Mr Al Haroun filed his own reply to Dr Feshawi’s report, stating that his solicitors’ “sudden withdrawal has hindered my ability formally to engage Dr Yousef as I had planned”, and he also hints at an inability to pay Dr Yousef. He states that:

“I have consulted informally with legal experts in Qatari law, and their insight have informed the arguments I present in this report”.

The document sets out “Dr Awad’s likely response” to criticisms of his report and documents “Dr Awad might reference” or “might highlight” or what “Dr Awad would argue”.

Mr Al Haroun is not a lawyer in any jurisdiction nor (although this is less significant for present purposes) is he able to provide an independent assessment of the issues of Qatari law. Neither Mr Al Haroun’s views, nor those of the unidentified legal experts he says he has consulted, constitute admissible expert evidence in this case, nor do they fall within the parameters of the permission granted to adduce such evidence before the court.

On 12 June 2025, the Defendants filed a witness statement making a number of challenges to the First Report, and those challenges were repeated in the Defendants’ skeleton argument served the following day.

On 16 June 2025, the Defendants’ solicitors were sent an email from “[email protected]” (an email address which is not linked with the professional firm referred to in the First Report) which takes responsibility for the report and suggests that “any discrepancies, particularly those relating to the numbering of articles, are the result of translation variances and not any substantive revisions”. The email also refers to “nuances …. inevitably lost in the course of legal translation”. The email, written in perfect English, does not itself provide the corrected references, but attaches an undated and unsigned document in the Arabic langue which includes a number of different numerical references (which appear in “Eastern Arabic” in the sense of English numerical notation) and which correspond more closely in their subject-matter with the relevant provisions of the Qatari Civil Code.

On the same date, Mr Al Haroun filed his skeleton argument which makes various very serious allegations about attempts by the Defendants’ solicitors or unnamed intermediaries acting on behalf of the Defendants to bribe and/or intimidate Professor Awad, and also suggests that the principal of the El Motahedon law firm in Cairo where Professor Awad works had confirmed Professor Awad’s authorship of the First Report to the Defendants’ solicitors (something which I have been told on instructions did not happen and which has since been confirmed by a witness statement). The skeleton made various unparticularised allegations against Dr Feshawi including “past academic irregularities” and suggested that Dr Feshawi held a professional grievance against Professor Awad which had led him to criticise the First Report.

In the evening of 17 June 2025, Mr Al Haroun served a further witness statement. This alleges that Dr Feshawi had offered Professor Awad a position in the Sultan Al Abdullah law firm where he works, which Professor Awad had turned down, and that he had asked Professor Awad to supervise his PhD thesis which Professor Awad had declined to do “due to concerns of academic dishonesty and misconduct”. The statement repeats the allegations of intimidation and bribery, and the allegation that the senior partner of El Motahedon has confirmed the authenticity of report.

The witness statement attached a four page electronic document, once again written in fluent English, and with something of a flourish, said to come from Professor Awad. This suggested that he had provided his opinion in his capacity as a Professor of Law and not in connection with his role in the El Motahedon law firm. The statement seeks to confirm Professor Awad’s authorship of the First Report and its essential accuracy, attributing the matters raised to translation issues and linguistic nuances. It also gives evidence of the bribery and intimidation allegations raised by Mr Al Haroun in his skeleton, suggesting these came via unidentified “Egyptian lawyers”. It provided the same two non-professional email addresses for Professor Awad as the letter. The statement suggested that Professor Awad had known Dr Feshawi for “many years”, that Dr Feshawi did not have the linguistic competence to produce a report in English and which hinted at unspecified failings in Dr Feshawi’s academic integrity. The statement suggests that Professor Awad declined an invitation from Dr Feshawi to join the Sultan Al-Abdullah law firm in 2008 and that in 2013 Professor Awad refused to supervise Dr Feshawi’s PhD. Both the personal attack, and what can only be described as advocacy on behalf of Mr Al Haroun in the closing part of the statement, are not appropriate from an expert, and are indicative of a lack of detachment on the part of the writer.

I have carefully considered Dr Feshawi’s criticisms, conscious that two lawyers often disagree as to what proposition a legal source supports, and that there can be greater scope for divergences in view when the materials in issue are translated sources concerning a legal system with which the court is not familiar. In addition, it is not uncommon to find criticisms of the kind which Dr Feshawi advances that some relevant part of the article has not been drawn to the reader’s attention (of the “your Lordship was not taken to ….” variety which remain an unwelcome feature of Commercial Court advocacy). I have also carefully considered the other evidence on this issue, including the witness statement and letter said to be from Professor Awad. Having done so:

In these circumstances, the position before the court so far as expert evidence of Qatari law is concerned is as follows: