Litigators know too well that obtaining judgment is only half the battle, and sometimes the easy part. In a globalised world, judgment debtors have open ever more sophisticated means to frustrate enforcement. In Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC v Al Sari,1 Foxton J was faced with various topical issues arising in this context, including as to the viability of English law claims against parties allegedly conspiring to frustrate enforcement, and whether process can be served outside the jurisdiction against so-called “non-cause of action defendants” (“NCADs”) who nevertheless may control assets which could be enforced against.

In 2016, the claimant bank (“the Bank”) obtained an £80 million judgment in Sharjah, UAE, against the Al Sari family (defendants 1 to 3, “the Family”). That claim had been supported by an English freezing injunction against them and claimants 2 to 4 (“the BVI Companies”) who were originally owned by the Family but, following BVI proceedings, became controlled by the Bank.

The Bank alleged that the Family then frustrated enforcement of its Sharjah judgment with assistance from defendants 7 to 9 (“the Globe Defendants”) and defendant 10, Mr Almheiri. In April 2019 defendant 7 (“Globe”) commenced new proceedings in Sharjah against the BVI Companies (initially represented by a local lawyer, purportedly appointed by the Family) on a debt ostensibly arising from the so-called “Globe Documents”,