Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

58. I now turn to consider the evidence that I did hear from HRH and Director 1. Although Director 1 gave his evidence first, I consider it more appropriate to deal with the evidence of HRH first in this judgment, given that it is her application. I had already determined that HRH was a vulnerable witness, although she gave her evidence confidently and without obvious distress or difficulty. I am sure, however, that it was a difficult process for her, although this is true for many litigants in these courts. In answer to questions from Mr Cusworth QC, she told me that there were several reasons why indefinite maintenance provision would be very difficult for her and the children to accept. She said it would put incredible additional pressure to be living always under the shadow of possible litigation. She would feel she had no control and would always wonder if the money was coming in. 59. Mr Dyer then cross-examined, over what was a considerable period, namely for a day and a half of court time. I make it clear that the cross-examination was, with the exception of one question, entirely proper throughout. It was conducted courteously and it did deal with the issues in the case. I do not propose to review all of her evidence. I will deal with some of the most salient aspects before I make such findings as are necessary for me to come to my decision. HRH began by accepting that it was important that the children live a normal life, in so far as that is ever possible given the security implications at all times. She accepted that this includes the children having an understanding of the value of money and avoiding extravagance and waste. She said she would set an example. I do not consider, however, that I should reduce her award as a result of her evidence in this regard. After all, it would not be appropriate for me to increase the award if she had disagreed with Mr Dyer and said she was in favour of extravagance and waste. She was then asked about the purchase and refurbishment of HRH’s home near Kensington Palace. She accepted that the refurbishment in 2017/2018 was substantial and cost £14.7 million. It was done to her taste and specification. She acknowledged it was like moving into a new house. This does, of course, work both ways. On the one hand, Mr Cusworth can point to the amount spent as being a clear indication of the standard of accommodation appropriate for this family, whereas Mr Dyer can say that, if this amount was spent relatively recently, there is less need to do significant works in the coming years. HRH then told me that she has five housekeepers and a handyman at HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, saying that it is a huge house and it absorbs all the help they can get. She added that the property has always been maintained to a high standard and I accept that entirely. She was asked about her wish to spend a further £1.9 million on a kitchen extension. She reminded me that they had only lived in the house for short periods of time in the past but, since their arrival in this country in April 2019, they had spent much of their time there. 60. Mr Dyer cross-examined her in great detail about her budgets. On numerous occasions, he put it to her that the figures included were excessive and not in accordance with her wish for the children to have a normal life. He asked her about an additional £60,000 per annum to run HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, over and above existing professional fees and tax of £115,000 per annum. She was unable to say other than her solicitors’ private client team had made this estimate. She was asked about her figure of £900,000 per annum for wear and tear on HRH’s home near Kensington Palace in addition to £1 million per annum for a ten year refurbishment costing £10 million, particularly given the expenditure before they moved in. Her response was that this was the standard of accommodation the family had previously enjoyed. She was asked about a claim of £1.9 million for a kitchen extension which, said Mr Dyer, had no detailed costings, architects drawings or the like. In relation to Castlewood, she was asked about a comprehensive refurbishment costing £3 million every ten years when the entire property and grounds is only worth £4.5 million. She was asked about taking nine people on holiday on every occasion, including another family of four. She made the point that the children needed to be with other families. Indeed, I can see all sorts of practical difficulties if they were to need to attend standard children’s clubs or hotel activities. Mr Dyer then turned to the general budget , which includes £500,000 per annum for [item 1]; £48,000 per annum for [item 2]; £133,000 per annum for [item 3]; £48,000 per annum for [item 4], which, she accepted, cost between £500 and £1,000 each; the sum of £250,000 per annum for tutoring; and her claim for two nannies and a nurse. I will have to do my best to come to a conclusion as to what is reasonable whilst remembering that the exceptional wealth and remarkable standard of living enjoyed by these children during the marriage takes this case entirely out of the ordinary. 61. Mr Dyer then asked her about the expenditure on Castlewood. For example, the property expenses for the year ending 5 April 2019 were £381,872 whereas her budget is for expenditure of £1,264,000. She told me that this was not comparing like with like as, prior to April 2019, they had perhaps spent ten to fifteen days in the property per annum whereas, during Covid-19, they were there virtually full time. I accept that distinction. Mr Dyer was critical of her budget expenditure of £216,8000 on “ gardeners and machinery/supplies, general property maintenance, window cleaners, pest control, pools services, security cameras fire alarms etc ”. I do not consider this fair criticism when I note that the sum of £111,771 was spent in the year to 5 April 2019 on “ garden landscaping and maintenance ” alone, at a time when the family was hardly there. She was asked why she had bought three cars for Zayed. She said he was accustomed to being given cars as gifts. I do think this is a legitimate criticism given Zayed’s age but, if the cars are used by the family, it is not wasted money. Mr Dyer then asked her about whether “ the allowances ” for the children amounting to some £20 million per annum were to be saved or were for spending. She acknowledged that, each year, the family spent a very large sum of money. She said that the money was there to be spent and she could always ask for more if more was needed. She was asked about Jalila’s account with N Bank. It held AED 43.5 million in January 2017 which had increased to AED 84.6 million by January 2018. She said that she did not spend the money in that period, although I note that, even that year, some AED 28 million did leave the account, including a transfer to an account in the name of HRH of AED 14,696,000 on 3 August 2017. This does show that this money was not ring-fenced for the children during the marriage and there was no objection to transfers being made to HRH’s accounts. Nevertheless, HRH said that there were periods when large amounts built up in the accounts. She was asked about transfers to an entity known as M. She told me it is a property investment company. She was not sure but she thought that transfer may have been for the works to HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, which, if correct, would be another example of this money being spent on “adult” expenditure. A sum of AED 115 million had left Jalila’s account on 19 April 2016. Again, she was not sure what that was, although it might have been related to the investment in La Ville Hotel . I had wondered if this was related to the purchase of HRH’s home near Kensington Palace but I was told by leading counsel that there were other debits from these accounts for that, including a sum of AED 180 million, which was approximately £37 million at the time. It is, of course, right that the children are discretionary beneficiaries of the trusts set up to hold that property but, in general, it is entirely clear to me that the money paid into their N accounts was not ring-fenced for them but was simply used for general expenditure as and when required. 62. Mr Dyer then turned to the show jumping horses purchased in the hope they would be able to compete in the Olympic Games. HRH acknowledged that the funds used should be returned to the children as soon as she can. She said there was no hard and fast rule about repayment and it could be done “ as and when ”. Although she has not yet paid the money back, she intends to do so. She did make the point that the horses were something that everyone enjoyed, including the children and it was akin to a family project. Inevitably, she was asked about the money that went to the blackmailers. She believed that some of the money had come from her account, such as one payment of £2.2 million. This was clearly a most unsatisfactory episode. I realise I have not heard from the alleged blackmailers but nobody should be blackmailed and HRH must have been very frightened at this point. It would have been better if she had used her own allowance to fund all these payments but I have already made the point that this money was clearly intended as a “pool” for expenditure and, as Mr Dyer recognises, it is water under the bridge. She was then asked about a horse called Aralyn Blue, which she sold in March 2021. The other horses went into King Hussein’s Team at a notional value of €16.75 million. She was not clear why Aralyn Blue did not do so as well, although she was sure there was a reason at the time. She later told me she thought it was because he was going to be ridden by different riders. I accept that Aralyn Blue had been purchased with money from Zayed’s account and she was wrong, in this litigation, to say that it was her horse, although I am not sure exactly how this mistake is relevant to the applications she is making. She added that some horses, such as Irenice Horta (cost €5 million) and Chianti’s Champion (cost AED 12.6 million) were bought with money from Jalila’s account whereas other horses, such as Ms Bubbles (cost €1.75 m) were bought with her money. She said that Crispo and Chianti’s Champion had been bought in January 2019 and March 2019 respectively. She accepted that the marriage was in great difficulties by then. She asked HH for a divorce by the beginning of March 2019 but he had refused so it was not obvious the marriage would end and she carried on exactly as she normally did. 63. She was then asked about the payments made to her brother, Prince Ali. On 18 October 2019, a sum of $5,086,759 was transferred to him. She told me that he lives with his wife, Princess Rym, and their family at the Baraka Palace in Jordan, which belongs to her family. It is a large property and there are considerable running costs. When Princess Rym was pregnant, HH and HRH had visited and agreed that they would fund the family for ten years. She acknowledged that this was very generous of HH but she took the clear view that the promise had to be honoured notwithstanding her divorce, so she paid the balance of the money due up front to clear the liability. She acknowledged that Prince Ali does, like her, have an income from the Jordanian Royal Court. Indeed, it is possible that there may be an additional allowance for the Baraka Place but HRH did not know how much it is. I would be surprised if it was very significant. She did tell me that the Palace has not been used for Jordanian State functions. She said the last big function there was her wedding to HH. She added that she did not want her children to inherit any moral obligation to their uncle if anything had happened to her. I can understand why she felt she needed to honour the obligation and get it out of the way by one lump sum. She told me Prince Ali stood against Sepp Blatter for the Presidency of FIFA in 2016 and HH had agreed they should fund his campaign. This was the origins of the campaign for integrity in sport. She said that HH was, during the marriage, very kind and generous but they had been cut off overnight. 64. Mr Dyer returned to T H Trust. HRH said it had not been created with the sole purpose of receiving the horses that she gifted to it. There were no rules about such things or where horses should be put. If she wanted a horse, she bought it. The same applied to HH. I accept this evidence without reservation. She added that HH did not know which trust the horses went into either. She did want Team Harmony out of Godolphin. She then told me about prize money. She said that Weatherbys distribute all winnings to the owners and the jockey. She had not produced any Weatherbys’ accounts showing payments to her and I am satisfied the money was paid to Godolphin. Nevertheless, she told me that she did receive the sum of £15 million. HH had telephoned her in the Beach Palace and congratulated her on doing such a good job of organising his guests that he wanted her to have the prize money. She initially resisted but he insisted saying he wanted her to have it. It was paid from the Zabeel office , not from Godolphin or Weatherbys. She acknowledged that it was incredibly generous of him and she was very honoured. I do have to say that I find that this is further evidence that the horses did not legally belong to her as this was a generous gift rather than an entitlement. She did say that she believed they were hers and I accept that is what she believed. In re-examination, she told Mr Cusworth that HH had, via his lawyers, told her in February 2020 to use the children’s money for their maintenance. 65. By now, I had watched the video of the opening of the walk-in safe that contained HRH’s jewellery in Dubai. No evidence had been given in relation to that. Mr Cusworth made the point that Mr Dyer had not cross-examined about it but I reminded him that he had not led any evidence on the subject either. HRH was therefore recalled. She told me that she had kept around 25% of her jewellery in London following previous trips here and this was the jewellery that she had sold. When she came to England in April 2019, she brought one small jewellery box but the rest was left in the safe at the Beach Palace. She was really very disappointed by the video as, she said, all the really valuable pieces were simply not there. She valued what she had seen at only approximately £20,000. She said it was basically costume jewellery and leather bracelets for wearing with kaftans on a day to day basis. The large pieces, containing diamonds, pearls, sapphires and emeralds were simply not there. Mr Dyer asked her why she had not brought them with her and she said she did not want to be accused of stealing them. She had hoped she would be able to sit down with HH and sort it out. She had just taken the jewellery that she wears on a day to day basis. It would have been very difficult to empty the room, as her jewellery collection would spread across the entire court room. I accept this evidence. She added that the jewellery included gifts from HH and from other Heads of State. When asked about the mark-up involved in retail purchases, she acknowledged this was the case but pointed out for how much she had been able to sell the jewellery she retained. She made the fair point that pieces hold their value if they are of good quality and from named houses, such as Cartier. She told me she felt the most valuable item was a diamond set, namely necklace, ring and earrings and would have been worth around £1 million. She was asked about the video and she told me she did not see anything of value and certainly not her diamond pendant earrings or her diamond solitaire necklace. She said, in that regard, all she saw was small rings with sapphires. Mr Dyer asked why there was no inventory or receipts. She said she was never given receipts, which is entirely logical, and that inventories were not kept. Mr Dyer asked what would happen if they were stolen. She replied that there would not be a burglary at the Beach Palace and I consider this to be self-evidently correct. She added that she was spoiled with wonderful gifts. She accepted that her list was inadequate but she had not had time to do a long detailed itemised list. She did not want to exaggerate and considered her figure of £20 million that she now seeks to be conservative. I am certainly not an expert on jewellery let alone the valuation of jewellery. I was, however, struck at the time I watched the video as to the absence of large set pieces of jewellery with numerous precious stones, which was what I had been expecting. The jewellery found did seem pretty standard fare. It was not what I was expecting. Mr Dyer urges me not to make findings when the evidence is so unsatisfactory but this is an area where the absence of HH to answer questions as to the jewellery he gave HRH and its whereabouts is significant. I consider I am entitled to accept the evidence of HRH in such circumstances without the corroboration that Mr Dyer seeks. I do so. I believed what she told me. Indeed, my overall conclusion was that her evidence to me was, as Mr Cusworth submits, clear, calm, consistent and palpably honest.