UK High Court Blocks Bankruptcy Petition Against Qatari Businessman in Major Ruling

The UK High Court set aside a bankruptcy petition against a Qatari businessman on June 16, 2026. The case exposed a critical procedural error by a Dubai bank. It now stands as an important warning for creditors pursuing debtors across international borders.

What Happened in This Case

Emirates NBD Bank filed a £16.3 million bankruptcy petition against Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari. The bank tried to serve the petition through alternative means inside England. Judge Greenwood ruled that service was invalid because Al Kuwari was not present in England at the relevant time. The bank had also never sought permission to serve him abroad in Qatar.

The court set aside the alternative service order entirely. The bankruptcy petition was declared legally ineffective.

Background of the Case

The dispute originally began in the United Arab Emirates. The Dubai Court of First Instance entered judgment in favour of Emirates NBD Bank on October 5, 2023. The debt in question stood at approximately £16.3 million.

The judgment survived two separate appeals in Dubai. The bank then moved to enforce the Dubai judgment in England. It obtained a default judgment against Al Kuwari in England on February 7, 2025.

The bankruptcy petition followed as the next enforcement step.

How the Bank Tried to Serve the Petition

Before presenting the petition, the bank served a statutory demand at three adjoining properties on Queen Anne's Gate in Westminster. The bank argued these London properties counted as Al Kuwari's place of residence under section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The bank attempted to serve the bankruptcy petition personally at those properties in July 2025. A process server reportedly photographed Al Kuwari entering one of the properties. However, personal service was not completed successfully.

The bank then applied for permission to serve by alternative means. On August 8, 2025, Judge Agnello granted an order permitting service through two channels. The bank published a notice in the London Gazette. It also sent service by email. The petition was formally served on August 12, 2025.

Al Kuwari applied to the court to set aside that order.

What Al Kuwari Argued in Court

Al Kuwari told the court he had already returned to Qatar before the alternative service order was made. He argued that the bank never sought permission to serve him outside the jurisdiction. Without that permission, alternative service within England could not substitute for proper overseas service.

He also pointed out that the bank made no attempt at all to serve him in Qatar. The bank knew he lived and worked in Doha. He argued that failure to even try personal service in Qatar made the claim of impracticability impossible to sustain.

What the Bank Argued

Emirates NBD Bank pushed back on two key points. First, it argued that bankruptcy jurisdiction flows from section 265 of the Insolvency Act rather than from the act of service itself. Second, it maintained there was a good arguable case that Al Kuwari was physically present in England when the alternative service order was granted between August 8 and 12, 2025. The bank also argued he had left England while aware of the petition and the bank's service attempts.

What the Judge Decided

Judge Greenwood sided with Al Kuwari on every major point.

The judge found the bank confused two separate meanings of the word "jurisdiction." Section 265 of the Insolvency Act governs whether the court can ultimately make a bankruptcy order. That is different from adjudicatory jurisdiction. Valid service of the petition is the foundation of the court's adjudicatory jurisdiction over the debtor. Both must be satisfied independently.

The judge confirmed that bankruptcy petitions carry the same territorial limits as all other civil proceedings. A debtor who is abroad cannot be served by alternative means inside England. The creditor must first obtain separate permission to serve outside the jurisdiction.

The court found no good arguable case that Al Kuwari was in England between August 8 and August 12, 2025. He owned London property and visited England regularly. However, the evidence clearly showed he was based in Doha. He lived there with his family and ran his business affairs from Qatar. The judge stated there was "no evidence" he was physically in England during the critical window.

On the question of impracticability, Judge Greenwood was direct. He said it was "very difficult to find that personal service in Qatar was impracticable, where it was not even attempted."

The alternative service order was set aside. Service of the bankruptcy petition was declared ineffective.

Who Represented Each Side

Emirates NBD Bank (Petitioner): Represented by William Edwards KC of 3VB, instructed by DWF (Middle East).

Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari (Respondent)
Represented by Alexander Milner KC of Fountain Court Chambers, instructed by Signature Litigation.

Why This Ruling Matters for Cross Border Debt Recovery

This case carries important lessons for banks and creditors attempting to recover debts across jurisdictions. The High Court made clear that bankruptcy proceedings are not a shortcut around standard service rules. A creditor cannot use alternative service inside England as a workaround when a debtor lives abroad.

The correct route is to obtain permission to serve outside the jurisdiction before pursuing alternative methods. Skipping this step — even when the debtor has connections to England — is a procedural risk that can collapse the entire petition.

For creditors with Middle East judgments trying to enforce in England, this ruling confirms the following:

Property ownership in England is not the same as residence. Al Kuwari owned London properties. That alone did not make him present in the jurisdiction for service purposes.

Attempting service abroad is required before claiming impracticability. The bank never tried to serve Al Kuwari in Qatar. The court treated this omission as fatal to the argument that personal service was impracticable.

Getting the sequence right matters enormously. The bank secured an enforcement judgment in England. It then lost the bankruptcy petition on a procedural step that could have been avoided entirely.

Key Legal Points from the Judgment

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What did the UK High Court rule in the Emirates NBD Bank case?

The High Court ruled that the bank's alternative service of a bankruptcy petition on a Qatari businessman was invalid. The court set aside the service order on June 16, 2026.

Q: Who is Ghanim Bin Saad Majid Al Saad Al Kuwari?

He is a Qatari businessman based in Doha. Emirates NBD Bank pursued a £16.3 million bankruptcy petition against him in England.

Q: Why did the court block the bankruptcy petition service?

The bank served the petition through alternative means in England without first getting permission to serve Al Kuwari in Qatar. The court found no evidence he was in England during the service window.

Q: What is section 265 of the Insolvency Act 1986?

It is the provision that governs whether an English court can make a bankruptcy order. The bank argued it replaced the need for proper service. The court disagreed.

Q: What should creditors do when a debtor is abroad?

Creditors must obtain court permission to serve outside the jurisdiction before relying on alternative service methods inside England.

Q: Can a debtor's UK property count as their place of residence for bankruptcy purposes?

Not automatically. The court found that owning London property did not prove Al Kuwari was resident or present in England at the relevant time.