Back to Insights listing

Banking and financial services, Commercial disputes, International / offshoreWednesday 13 May 2026

Court of Appeal rejects jurisdiction challenge in Lebanese banking case

The Court of Appeal has rejected a jurisdiction challenge brought by Bank Audi, the largest bank in Lebanon, in respect of a claim brought by Sheikh Alesayi for the transfer of USD 24m of funds held by him with the Bank in Lebanon.

At a 3-day hearing before Constable J below [2025] EWHC 1033 (KB), the Court considered the jurisdiction to bring a claim under the consumer provisions in ss15B-15E Civil Judgments and Jurisdiction Act 1982 (the “CJJA”). The Bank argued that there was not a good arguable case that Sheikh Alesayi was domiciled in England at the relevant time or that the Bank directed activities to England. The Bank also contended that a contract had not been “concluded” for the purposes of the CJJA in 2016 when Sheikh Alesayi signed a comprehensive new set of terms and conditions, and that a contract was concluded only when he first opened an account in 1994 (the “Contract Conclusion Issue”). Constable J rejected the Bank’s Part 11 application (including on the question as to the direction of activity; in this regard, it is notable that the Judge placed reliance on documents that were disclosed by the Bank only as a result of a disclosure order made on the jurisdiction challenge, the judgment in respect of which sets out the test for disclosure in such circumstances: [2025] EWHC 440 (KB)).

The Bank appealed on the Contract Conclusion Issue. The Court of Appeal (Peter Jackson, Popplewell and Zacaroli LJJ) unanimously rejected the Bank’s appeal, and the Bank’s jurisdiction challenge, finding that the test for whether a new contract is concluded for the purposes of the CJJA is whether the variation agreed between the contracting parties is of such magnitude that it gives rise not to the mere updating or amendment of the contract but to the creation of a new legal relationship between the contracting parties, so that the initial contract should be regarded as having been replaced by a new contract ([2026] EWCA Civ 551).

Bobby Friedman KC and Caspar Bartscherer acted for the successful Claimant/Respondent, instructed by Graham Shear, Andrew Street, Tegan Goddard, Fiona Boyle, and Chloe Allen of BCLP.

People to view:

Share by: Email

Related Insights View all thought leadership

  1. Placeholder

    Articles

    Foreign judgments and issue estoppel: orthodoxy reasserted

    In the latest edition of our commercial litigation insights series, Andreas Giannakopoulos examines the Court of Appeal's recent decision in Aviator LLC v Spribe OÜ [2026] EWCA Civ 1224, considering whether the preclusive effect of a foreign judgment on a claim made in subsequent English proceedings is governed by English law or the law applicable to the underlying claim.

    By Andreas Giannakopoulos
    Wednesday 28 October 2026

    View more
  2. Placeholder

    News

    Clare Stanley KC featured in Chambers & Partners Stars at the Bar 2027

    Clare Stanley KC has been named as one of Chambers’ Stars at the Bar, an accolade given to just 16 top barristers who are recognised for their excellence across a range of practice areas. Clare is ranked by Chambers &... Read more

    Tuesday 27 October 2026

    View more
  3. Placeholder

    Articles

    A fiduciary’s duty to disclose: a shield, not a sword?

    In this article in our commercial litigation insights series, Alice Hawker examines the Court of Appeal's recent decision in G.I. Globinvestment Ltd v XY ERS UK Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1248, considering whether a fiduciary's duty to disclose is a shield (against claims alleging breach of the ’no conflict’ or ’no profit’ rules) or a sword (to be used as a freestanding claim).

    By Alice Hawker
    Monday 19 October 2026

    View more
  4. Placeholder

    Articles

    Nelson, what does your right eye see? When does wilful ignorance amount to dishonesty

    In this article in our commercial litigation insights series, Ernest Leung analyses the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Grosvenor Property Developers Limited v Portner Law Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1238, which provides important guidance on the test for dishonesty in civil fraud claims and the circumstances in which "Nelsonian" or blind-eye knowledge can be imputed to a party.

    By Ernest Leung
    Tuesday 13 October 2026

    View more

View all thought leadership