In Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari [2026], the High Court set aside a £16.3 million bankruptcy petition (BR-2025-000542) and alternative service order against a Qatari billionaire. The judge ruled that serving the debtor via alternative means in England was invalid because he was in Qatar, and the bank had never sought permission to serve him abroad.

The judgment, delivered by ICC Judge Greenwood in the Insolvency and Companies List (ChD), sets aside a previous alternative service order and derails a bankruptcy petition targeting a multi-million-pound debt. The decision underscores that prime London real estate holdings cannot serve as a procedural proxy for valid cross-border service when a debtor in fact resides outside the jurisdiction.

The Underlying Litigation

The cross-border enforcement campaign stems from a sustained effort by Dubai-based Emirates NBD Bank PJSC to recover substantial funds from one of Qatar’s most prominent business figures, Mr. Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari. The underlying procedural history developed across multiple jurisdictions:

The Dubai Judgments: In October 2023, Emirates NBD secured a judgment for £16.3 million in the DIFC Dubai Court of First Instance. This judgment successfully withstood two subsequent levels of appeal within the United Arab Emirates.

The English Recognition: Moving to enforce the judgment debt within England and Wales, the bank commenced a Part 7 claim in the Commercial Court (Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Al Saad Al Kuwari Case No: CL-2025-000001), resulting in a successful default judgment in February 2025.

The Insolvency Route: Seeking maximum leverage, the bank initiated creditor bankruptcy proceedings in June 2025 (In re Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari Case No: BR-2025-000542).

Procedural Trap: Shortcutting Alternative Service

To progress a bankruptcy petition, a creditor must validly serve the petition on the debtor. The bank attempted personal service at three adjoining, high-value properties in Westminster, London – commonly referred to as the debtor’s £115 million palace. While a process server observed the debtor entering the premises in July 2025, personal service was not completed before he left the UK to return to his permanent residence in Doha, Qatar.

Rather than pursuing the proper channels for international service, the bank sought an order for alternative service under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, which was granted in August 2025. This permitted the bank to deem service executed via publication in the London Gazette and digital transmission. The debtor’s legal team subsequently applied to set aside both the service order and the underlying petition.

Core Legal Threshold: Substantive vs Adjudicatory Jurisdiction

In his judgment, ICC Judge Greenwood identified a fundamental flaw in the bank’s tactical approach, clarifying that the bank had conflated two distinct statutory tests:

Substantive Jurisdiction under Section 265

The bank correctly identified that the English court possessed the substantive capacity to hear an insolvency petition against the debtor. Under Section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the court has jurisdiction if the debtor has a place of residence or has carried on business in England and Wales within the preceding three years. The ownership of the Westminster estate comfortably satisfied this statutory floor.

Adjudicatory Jurisdiction via Valid Service

However, satisfying Section 265 does not grant a creditor automatic territorial jurisdiction over an individual who is physically located abroad.

Key Legal Principle: Substantive jurisdiction determines whether the English court can hear an insolvency case; valid service determines whether the court’s power has been legitimately activated over a specific individual. Valid service remains the literal foundation of the court’s adjudicatory power.

Because the bank could not establish that the debtor was physically present within the jurisdiction at the precise time the alternative service was executed, and because the bank had never applied for permission to serve the insolvency proceedings out of the jurisdiction in Qatar, the alternative service order was defective and entirely invalid.

Key Takeaways for Litigation Creditors

This ruling serves as an expensive cautionary tale for insolvency practitioners dealing with internationally mobile, high-net-worth debtors.

No Property Shortcuts: Possessing high-value residential assets in London is sufficient to establish a connection under Section 265, but it cannot be weaponised as a mechanism to bypass international service treaties or formal letters of request.

Service Must Lead, Not Follow: If a debtor is known to reside in a non-Hague Convention state or a jurisdiction requiring complex service mechanisms (such as Qatar), creditors must budget time and resources for serving abroad from the outset.

Strict Construction of Insolvency Rules: The courts will not allow alternative service orders to function as convenient workarounds when a creditor has failed to make any substantive attempt at serving the debtor in their actual country of residence.

By failing to respect the strict territorial limits of the English court’s service powers, the bank’s enforcement strategy has been reset to the beginning of the bankruptcy process.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the core legal issue in this case?

The High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) was asked to determine whether a creditor can use an alternative service order to serve a bankruptcy petition on a non-UK resident debtor in England, simply because the debtor owns substantial residential property in London. The court specifically evaluated the boundaries between substantive jurisdiction under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the strict territorial requirements for executing valid service.

2. Why did the High Court set aside the alternative service order?

ICC Judge Greenwood ruled that the alternative service order (historically referred to as an Agnello order in this context) was legally ineffective because the bank failed to establish that the debtor, Mr Al Kuwari, was physically present in England at the time the service was executed. Crucially, the bank had never attempted to serve the debtor in Qatar, where he actually resides, meaning they could not prove that personal service was “impracticable”.

3. Does owning a £115 million London property establish jurisdiction for a bankruptcy petition?

It establishes substantive jurisdiction, but not adjudicatory jurisdiction. Under Section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986, owning a residence in England satisfies the threshold for the court to potentially hear a bankruptcy case. However, ownership of property does not give a creditor a free pass to bypass the strict rules of territorial service if the debtor is currently abroad.

4. What must a creditor demonstrate before seeking an alternative service order against an international debtor?

To successfully obtain and rely on an alternative service order, a creditor must show a “good arguable case” that the debtor was physically present within England and Wales during the relevant service period. Furthermore, they must demonstrate that they have exhausted reasonable standard channels, such as attempting formal cross-border service in the debtor’s home country, before declaring personal service to be impracticable.

5. What are the broader implications of this ruling for cross-border debt enforcement?

The judgment serves as a strict warning to international banks and litigation solicitors that technical procedural shortcuts will not be tolerated in high-value bankruptcy proceedings. Wealth and prime UK assets do not strip foreign citizens of their rights to proper international service. Creditors dealing with internationally mobile debtors must formulate a valid, treaty-compliant service strategy from the outset rather than attempting to rely on localised alternative service workarounds.