Cayman Court rules on jurisdiction and contempt

As Britain's Financial Times and Abu Dhabi'sThe National have reported, an appeals court in the Cayman Islands has ruled that the Gosaibi-Maan Al-Sanea dispute should be heard in the country, over-ruling an earlier decision.

The same court lifted a contempt of court ruling against Mr Al-Sanea, which it had handed down in March of this year.

The ruling on jurisdiction was welcomed by AHAB. Their legal representative, Eric Lewis, was quoted by the Financial Times, saying: "We are extremely pleased that the Cayman Island Court of Appeal has recognized that this massive fraud claim should be tried in the Cayman Islands and that the parties should not be compelled to go to Saudi Arabia for the determination of preliminary issues". Maan Al-Sanea's representatives declined to comment.

The Cayman's ruling demonstrates just how muddied the waters have become, especially since a New York court earlier threw out AHAB's case, ruling that it should be heard in Saudi Arabia, where a committee has been analysing the case for more than a year. AHAB is also appealing that decision, while the Financial Times pointed out that Mr Al-Sanea can also appeal this latest ruling. As the Financial Times concludes, analysts have speculated that , given the apparent confusion, the dispute could "drag on for years".

Frank Kane, writing in The National, also looked at at the complexities of the case and its disputed jurisdiction, but made some particularly important observations about possible repercussions in Saudi Arabia.

As part of his judgement in the Cayman Court, Sir John Chadwick ruled that "there was no reason to expect the Saudi committee would reach a conclusion" on the dispute. "Nor", he argued, "was it possible to be confident that proceedings commenced in Saudi courts would lead to a decision determinative of (AHAB) claims against Mr Al Sanea within any measurable period, if at all."

Frank Kane argues that: "In layman's terms, he was telling the Saudis: "We've given you your chance but we're fed up waiting for you, so we're going to tackle it ourselves."

So, an intriguing ruling that throws up two immediate points of interest: first, as The National points out, "there are many chapters still to be in this Saudi saga."

Second, what will the reaction be in Saudi Arabia to the judge's seemingly unimpressed view of its committee? Their reaction will be something to watch...

Read the Financial Times report on their website (registration required) and read Frank Kane's editorial here.