Case No. FD05D04818

1.This is my written ruling in respect of the form of an order made in relation to a number of applications which were before the court at hearings on 25 November 2021 and 7 March 2022. On both occasions I heard oral submissions from counsel and, in addition to several iterations of the draft order, I have detailed written submissions from each of Mr Chichester-Clark (who has appeared throughout for the applicants), Mr Hunter (who appeared on 7 March 2022 for Ms Behbehani) and Ms Bianca Venkata (his predecessor, who appeared on 25 November 2021).2.Whilst counsel have been able to agree much of the drafting, there remain a number of points in contention. Time did not permit me to deliver a full judgment in related to all disputed matters at the last directions hearing and thus I agreed to prepare and hand down a written ruling on the substantive matters which continue to separate the parties.The genesis of these proceedings3.Some eighteen years ago, Ms Behbehani (the second respondent in these proceedings) issued financial claims against her former husband in the context of ongoing divorce proceedings in this jurisdiction. Those claims were resolved as the result of a judgment delivered by Parker J in November 2008 in the Family Division of the High Court following a contested hearing. The judge found that Mr Behbehani (who has taken no part in these proceedings) had failed to make full and frank disclosure of his financial resources. His assets were found to be in the order of £44 million including a 99.14% holding through ownership of two Irish companies in a Spanish company called Setubal 97 SL (“Setubal”). That company owned a valuable property portfolio including a golf course which was known as the Santa Clara Development. 4.By her order at the conclusion of the financial proceedings, Parker J awarded Ms Behbehani a sum of £20 million together with interim periodical payments pending payment in full and her costs. She made a freezing order over up to £20 million of Mr Behbehani’s assets to assist in enforcement. Nine years later, in July 2017, and in the absence of any payments and/or compliance with the order by Mr Behbehani, Parker J made further orders which were designed to assist Ms Behbehani in her attempts to enforce payment. One of those orders was a receivership order with a view to realising value in the Setubal shares which Ms Behbehani claimed then to be worth some €70 million. The matter was not without complication since one of the judge’s original findings had been that Mr Behbehani’s interest in Setubal lay in his beneficial ownership of the shares but not the underlying assets.5.The applicants are professional receivers who were appointed by the court in July 2017 under the terms of a receivership order in relation to the shares in Setubal. Following their appointment they immediately secured registration and recognition of the receivership order in Ireland in respect of a sum of up to £6.219 million. For a period of about eighteen months in 2018/2019, the receivership order was discharged pending a challenge in the Court of Appeal by an individual who claimed that it was he, and not Mr Behbehani, who was the ultimate beneficial owner of the Setubal shares. That challenge was unsuccessful. The appeal was dismissed and the receivership order reinstated in December 2019. However, the issue and resolution of the appeal created a significant hiatus in the receivership. For a period of over a year, the professional role of the applicants was put ‘on ice’; the receivership was effectively discharged whilst a decision was awaited from the Court of Appeal.6.The uncontradicted evidence of Mr Short, one of the Former Receivers, is that the appointment was accepted by the applicants on the clear basis that the potentially significant costs and disbursements which were likely to be incurred in several jurisdictions during the period of the receivership would be underwritten in full as ongoing disbursements by Mrs Bebehani and/or Mr Barroso, the partner with whom she was then living. Whilst it is not accepted to be a “family office” as such, it is acknowledged within these proceedings that Mr Barroso, whilst not a practising lawyer himself, owns or operates HA Law, the firm through which Ms Behbehani has been pursuing her enforcement proceedings against her former husband and, as a consequence, the current proceedings involving the applicants.7.Mr Short has filed a number of witness statements in these proceedings explaining that, despite protracted correspondence passing between them, neither Mr Barroso nor Ms Behbehani provided the promised funds to discharge, or reimburse, the costs which were incurred in the early stages of the receivership. As a result, the applicants faced what was described as a real threat of debt recovery actions against them in their personal capacities. 8.During the early part of 2020, at a time when the original receivership order had been discharged to await the outcome of the decision in the Court of Appeal, it appears that six of the offshore properties were sold for c. €5.569 million. They were heavily mortgaged to a local bank and produced just under €786,000 in terms of available equity. It appears to have been agreed at the time that this had no effect on the underlying value of the shares in Setubal as the equity reflected in the company’s balance sheet was converted into cash. Since then Ms Behbehani has filed a sworn witness statement in these proceedings in which she claims to have acquired property formerly belonging to Mr Behbehani which is worth in the order of £10 million. There is no reliable up-to-date evidence before this court in relation to (i) the extent of her recovery through the enforcement mechanisms available to her in various jurisdictions, and/or (ii) the extent of her own financial position save that, as I shall explain, she claims to be in a position of substantial illiquidity at the present time. She has not provided any evidence as to how she has applied funds already recovered in partial satisfaction of the 2008 order.