Leadingway Consultants Limited (Respondent) v Saab (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0108

Parties

Appellant(s)

Ayoub Farid Michel Saab

Respondent(s)

Leadingway Consultants Limited

Issue

How should a court exercise its discretion to set aside a default judgment where an identical claim is proceeding against a second defendant?

Facts

The Appellant and his late brother (the “Second Defendant”) controlled a Bermudan company (the “Company”). Under two English law placement agreements in 2012 and 2014, the Respondent loaned the Company EUR 35 million. In April 2017, the Company entered into liquidation. In return for not pursuing any claims in the liquidation, the Appellant and the Second Defendant offered the Respondent the right to participate in a scheme to develop and sell land in Lebanon (the “Proposal”). The Respondent agreed to the Proposal in October 2017. The Appellant and the Second Defendant have not yet developed or sold the land. In 2022, the Respondent issued proceedings, claiming EUR 45 million on the basis that the written agreement to the Proposal, or alternatively a separate oral agreement, incorporated a guarantee by the Appellant and the Second Defendant of repayment by 1 September 2019. The Respondent served the claim form on the Appellant in Cyprus on 24 March 2022. On 22 July 2022, the Respondent applied for judgment in default against the Appellant by reason of his failure to file an acknowledgement of service, which was granted. On 30 August 2023, the Respondent served the claim form on the Second Defendant in Cyprus. The Second Defendant filed an acknowledgement of service stating his intention to contest jurisdiction and then obtained an extension of time to do so. The Appellant then applied to set aside the default judgment while both the Appellant and the Second Defendant applied to contest jurisdiction. The Second Defendant’s jurisdiction application was one day out of time, so the Second Defendant applied for relief from sanctions. Knowles J granted the Second Defendant relief from sanctions (Judgment 1), granted the Appellant’s application to set aside default judgment (Judgment 2) and dismissed both jurisdiction applications (Judgment 3). The Court of Appeal dismissed the Respondent’s appeal against the grant of relief from sanctions but allowed the Respondent’s appeal against the setting aside of the default judgment. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

7 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top