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of a new legal relationship between the contracting parties, so that the initial contract should be regarded as having been replaced by a new contract ([2026] EWCA Civ 551).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

    Events / Webinars

    Wilberforce Civil Fraud Conference 2026

    Tuesday 7 July 2026 | 1pm - 5.50pm, followed by drinks and canapés
    The View at Royal College of Surgeons, London

    ÂŁ165 + VAT | 3.0 CPD

    View more
  2. Placeholder

    Events / Webinars

    Cross-Border Perspectives on Insolvency and Fraud: Tools, Tactics and Strategic Enforcement Across Jurisdictions

    Friday 5 June 2026 | 9am - 10.30am
    Wilberforce Chambers, 77 Chancery Lane

    Free to attend

    LIDW 2026

    View more
  3. Placeholder

    Recent Cases

    Privy Council Judgment in the Battle of the Brewers

    Commercial disputes, International / offshore

    Alan Gourgey KC
    Monday 20 April 2026

    View more
  4. Placeholder

    Events / Webinars

    Trust structures in the crosshairs: When to worry and what to do

    Thursday 4 June | 9am - 10.30am
    Wilberforce Chambers, 77 Chancery Lane

    Free to attend

    LIDW 2026

    View more

View all thought leadership