Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz

Court and Date:

• High Court of England and Wales
• [Date]

Facts:

• Mrs. Harb entered into an agreement with Prince Abdulaziz on 20 June 2003.
• The agreement involved Mrs. Harb receiving a lump sum payment of 12 million and two properties in Cheyne Walk in exchange for retracting certain allegations.
• The Prince denies making the agreement or contends that it was not intended to create legal relations, was too uncertain, or is unenforceable due to illegality.
• Mrs. Harb commenced proceedings against the King for financial provision under section 27.
• The King asserted sovereign immunity in relation to Mrs. Harb's claim.
• The Prince made witness statements dated 8 July 2015 and 21 July 2015, admitted under hearsay notices.
• The Prince's evidence was treated with caution due to his reasons for not giving oral evidence.
• Mrs. Harb's evidence was supported by attendance notes made by Mrs. Simon.
• Various arguments were made regarding the enforceability of the agreement, including uncertainty and illegality.

Issues:

1. Whether an agreement was reached between Mrs. Harb and Prince Abdulaziz on 20 June 2003.

2. Whether the agreement is enforceable under English law.

3. Whether the agreement is too uncertain or unenforceable due to illegality.

4. Whether Mrs. Harb should be prevented from enforcing the agreement.

Holding:

• The court concluded that an agreement was reached between Mrs. Harb and Prince Abdulaziz on 20 June 2003.
• The court held that the agreement was not enforceable due to it not being immediately binding or too uncertain, but not on the ground of illegality.
• Mrs. Harb's claim was dismissed.

Reasoning:

• The court found that the agreement lacked immediate binding effect or certainty, rendering it unenforceable.
• The court considered arguments regarding uncertainty and illegality but concluded that these grounds did not apply in this case.
• Mrs. Harb's claim was dismissed based on the lack of enforceability of the agreement.

Precedent:

• The court referenced Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, [2017] AC 467 in considering the doctrine of illegality.

Disposition:

• Mrs. Harb's claim against Prince Abdulaziz was dismissed due to the unenforceability of the agreement.

This case brief summarizes the dispute between Mrs. Harb and Prince Abdulaziz, the court's findings on the enforceability of their agreement, and the ultimate dismissal of Mrs. Harb's claim.