Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant, a member of a royal family, regarding enforcement of a contract to pay a sum of 12 million and transfer title to two properties. The Plaintiff, originally from Palestine, claimed to have been married to the Defendant's father under religious law and sought financial provision based on that relationship and subsequent agreements.

In 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a deed with an agent acting for an undisclosed principal, assigning rights in exchange for a payment and agreeing not to publish certain information. Despite this, the Plaintiff's financial situation deteriorated, leading to further negotiations with the Defendant in 2003, culminating in an alleged oral agreement at a hotel where the Defendant promised payment and transfer of properties in return for the Plaintiff withdrawing allegations against the Defendant's father.

The Defendant denied the existence of any such agreement or personal liability, asserting any dealings were as an agent for the King. The Plaintiff's trustee in bankruptcy issued proceedings to enforce the alleged agreement. The trial involved conflicting witness evidence, complicated by the Defendant's failure to attend cross-examination, and the case was decided in favour of the Plaintiff by the trial judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a binding contract was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the hotel meeting in June 2003.
2. If such a contract existed, whether the Defendant was personally liable or was acting as agent for the King.
3. The effect of the Defendant's failure to attend cross-examination on the assessment of evidence.
4. Whether the trial judge exhibited apparent bias against the Defendant or his counsel.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge erred in finding that a binding contract was made, given the inconsistencies and weaknesses in the Plaintiff’s evidence.
• The Defendant acted as agent for the King and had no personal liability under the alleged agreement.
• The judge wrongly inferred that the Defendant’s failure to attend cross-examination was to avoid scrutiny, disregarding official letters forbidding the Defendant from giving oral evidence.
• The trial judge was apparently biased against the Defendant and members of his counsel’s chambers, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Plaintiff’s evidence, supported by witnesses and contemporaneous documents, established the existence of a binding agreement.
• The Defendant’s failure to attend cross-examination justified giving less weight to his untested evidence.
• The Defendant was personally liable and did not act merely as agent for the King in the relevant negotiations.
• The trial judge’s conduct did not amount to apparent bias and his findings on credibility were properly made.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a detailed review of the evidence and the trial judge’s handling of the case. It identified significant shortcomings in the judge’s evaluation of witness credibility, particularly the failure to adequately address inconsistencies and evasiveness in the Plaintiff’s testimony and the lack of rigorous scrutiny of supporting witnesses. The judge was found to have taken a “short cut” by accepting the Plaintiff’s evidence largely uncritically and failing to analyze conflicting evidence and inherent probabilities.

The court further found that the judge erred in his approach to the agency issue by focusing on whether the Defendant had general authority to bind the King, rather than whether the Plaintiff reasonably understood the Defendant to be acting in a personal capacity. This lack of detailed analysis on a key issue undermined the judgment.

Regarding the Defendant’s failure to attend cross-examination, the court held that the trial judge wrongly inferred that this was to avoid scrutiny, disregarding official communications forbidding such testimony. This misapprehension likely adversely affected the judge’s assessment of the Defendant’s evidence.

On the allegation of apparent bias, the court acknowledged the judge’s intemperate conduct in correspondence but concluded that, objectively viewed, there was no real possibility that the judge’s bias affected the trial outcome. The court emphasized the distinction between hostility toward counsel and bias affecting judicial impartiality.

Overall, the court found the trial judge’s reasoning and analysis insufficiently detailed and flawed, necessitating a retrial before a different judge to ensure a fair hearing and proper evaluation of the facts and legal issues.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed, and the judgment below is set aside.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the High Court for a retrial before a different judge due to serious deficiencies in the original judgment’s reasoning and analysis, and concerns about procedural fairness arising from the trial judge’s assessment of evidence and conduct. No new legal precedent was established; the decision’s direct effect is to require a fresh trial to resolve the disputed factual and legal issues fairly and properly.