Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

80. I now turn to the issue of the quantum of these various awards. I will deal first with the question of HRH’s own lump sum. In total, she seeks a lump sum of £97,863,326 to compensate her for the chattels she has lost, in addition to £5.7 million to cover the costs she paid herself and a further sum outstanding to her solicitors. She also seeks sums for the payment of IHT in 2026 and 2036 for both properties. In addition, there is a further schedule of capital expenditure which includes various security updates and additional items of expenditure. I will deal first with the chattels. The claim is made up as to £20 million in lieu of jewellery; £32 million for her clothing; £13 million for the contents of the Beach Palace, Safa Villa II and Dalham Hall; £2 million for cars; and £10 million for [item A], making a total of £77 million. In addition, there was a claim for horses made up of £533,900 for show jumping horses not in her possession; £1,162,226 for horse related items, such as horseboxes; and £19,167,000 in relation to race horses. This makes a combined total for horses of £20,863,126. HH’s offer, at the start of the trial, was only for the 2026 IHT payment in the sum of £5,278,000 but he did increase this by £300,000 to cover one horsebox on the basis that he would return the rest of the items. 81. Dealing with the jewellery first, I have already accepted the evidence of HRH. I am clear that she only had approximately 25% of her jewellery in this country and she sold most of it for £4,561,044. She should not have had to do so. Since the conclusion of the case, the jewellery and haute couture items seen in the videos have been returned to her but I have accepted her evidence that the items of jewellery are worth only tens of thousands of pounds and that the really valuable items are missing. If 25% of her jewellery could be sold for £4,561,044, the missing 75% is £13,683,132. I award that sum by way of compensation. I am unable to say exactly what the position was in relation to the haute couture. I did not hear evidence in that regard and the items shown in the video were impressive and extensive, although Mr Cusworth told me in submissions that it did not include the really expensive evening attire. I am unable to come to a conclusion but have decided that an appropriate award for haute couture is the relatively modest sum of £1 million. I make no award for the contents of the Beach Palace, Safa Villa II or Dalham Hall. As far as I am aware, both HRH’s home near Kensington Palace and Castlewood are entirely adequately furnished and it was not as though I heard any evidence of some valuable painting such as a Monet or a Picasso that HRH desperately wanted returned. Turning to the cars, she has had to fund her entire fleet of cars in the UK out of her own resources, other than the recently acquired armoured vehicles. The cost of these soft skinned vehicles came to over £1 million, so I make an award of £1 million in lieu of the cars she had available to her previously. I do not, however, make any award in relation to the children’s cars. I do consider it an artificial edifice to talk of children of the ages of these children owning motor vehicles. Moreover, Zayed’s precious motor vehicle has now finally been returned to him. I am not prepared to make an award in relation to Jalila’s jewellery. I would hope that HH would return any item to her directly but my focus is the claims of her mother and I have not been able to form a view of the value or whereabouts of any jewellery that may have been owned by Jalila. 82. Turning to the horses, it has been agreed that HH will return to HRH some show jumpers valued by her at £533,900. I say no more about that. The figure of £300,000 is now agreed in relation to the horsebox. Finally, the race horses were clearly not owned by HRH. They were simply run in her colours. I am sure that gave her great pleasure but it is obvious that the horses were part of Godolphin. Godolphin bought the horses, paid for their upkeep and kept any winnings or stud fees. Overall, it is pretty obvious that the horses allocated to HRH would have cost money not made money. The figures suggested by Mr Dyer as to the losses incurred following the sales of some of these horses merely reinforces the point. I do accept that HRH did receive the very generous gift of £15 million from the Zabeel office on the instructions of HH to thank her for her work but I am satisfied this was a gift not an entitlement. I am, however, of the view that HRH did have a legitimate interest in horses and it would be reasonable for her to be able to own some of her own, given the enormous Godolphin operation run on behalf of HH. For example, over three days that the case was in court in October 2019, HH attended the Newmarket sales and spent £18 million on race horses. I have decided that an appropriate budget for HRH to be able to set up a small operation, buy a few reasonable horses and run them for several years would be £5 million. This makes a total award for chattels of £20,983,132. 83. It is agreed that HH should be responsible for the IHT payment on HRH’s home near Kensington Palace in 2026 in the sum of £5,278,000. He argues that he should pay it in 2026 but I disagree. It should be paid now as part of the clean break between the adults. On the other hand, I can see no reason why he should have to pay the 2036 bill. Both children will be independent by then and I consider this would fall foul of the general principle that HRH is making no claim for herself and my finding that I should not be making capital provision for the children. I cannot, however, see why he should not have to pay for the 2026 IHT on Castlewood. Finally, there is the question of costs, both in relation to HRH’s outstanding costs and the question of a costs fighting fund. In relation to her costs to date, I am clear that there should be an entirely clean sheet. It is accepted that HH has spent more on this litigation, overall, than she has, perhaps best seen by the difference in the number of counsel representing each party at this final hearing. HRH spent £5.75 million from her own limited resources at the commencement of this litigation. She should not have had to do so and should be reimbursed. The amount that is outstanding to her solicitors is complicated by the fact that there is one further legal services payment to make. I have decided that the correct sum to award for outstanding costs is £2.5 million. I have therefore concluded that her lump sum should be increased by £8,250,000 to cover these two amounts. There is provision for security for costs in the sum of £4 million currently in place. That provision becomes otiose given my decision. I direct that the money held by HH’s solicitors is either used in part payment of the lump sum order or is returned to HH on payment of the lump sum order in full. 84. I now turn to the question of a legal fees fighting fund. I was referred to the case of