Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

1. I have been hearing three applications made by Her Royal Highness Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein against His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, although, as it has turned out, only two of the applications have been actively pursued. I propose to use the convention that has been adopted by the President in his previous judgments and refer to them throughout as “HRH” and “HH” respectively. I do so for the sake of convenience and I obviously mean absolutely no discourtesy to either by so doing. 2. The first application made by HRH is dated 9 December 2019 and is pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. It is for financial provision for the two children of the marriage, Jalila and Zayed. The second, dated 19 June 2020, is made by HRH pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for financial provision following an overseas divorce. As I will explain in due course, it is a limited application rather than one seeking the full range of financial provision. The third application was brought pursuant to the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 for declarations as to the ownership of various horses, jewellery and the like. In fact, HRH accepts, realistically in my view, that there are insurmountable hurdles in relation to her making a claim for individual horses and that, even if I made a declaration in relation to items such as jewellery, she would never see the items, given that it is HH’s position that he does not have them. Instead, she seeks financial recompense for the losses she says she has sustained in consequence of losing these items.