Commercial Bank of Dubai is enforcing a 2016 Sharjah judgment of 433.8 million dirhams (about $118.1M) against the Emirati Al Sari family, chiefly in London. In July 2025, the Commercial Court held that a rival Sharjah judgment for Globe, a company it found the Al Saris controlled, was obtained by fraud. In October 2025, it sentenced Globe director Hamad Almheiri to two years for contempt.
Latest development Oct 17, 2025
On October 17, 2025, Mrs Justice Dias sentenced Hamad Almheiri, a director of the Globe companies, to two years in prison for contempt of court. She found he had made no attempt to give the asset disclosure required by a worldwide freezing order of January 15, 2025. She said the court would consider remitting six months if he complied.
Why it matters
The case tests when an English court will treat a UAE court judgment as obtained by fraud and restrain its enforcement. The ruling affects creditors enforcing UAE judgments against debtors whose assets are held through BVI companies in London.
Background
Between 2002 and 2010, Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC extended credit to FAL Oil Co LLC, an oil trader incorporated in Sharjah. Members of the Emirati Al Sari family and their company Investment Group Private Limited (IGPL) acted as guarantors. On November 25, 2012, the bank sued FAL, IGPL, Abdalla Juma Majid Al Sari, and his sons Majid and Mohamed in Sharjah for 472.7 million dirhams. On March 29, 2016, the Sharjah Court of First Instance gave judgment for 433.8 million dirhams (about $118.1M) plus interest. The Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on February 27, 2017.
The bank enforced the judgment in the British Virgin Islands (BVI). On February 19, 2019, the BVI court granted a final charging order over the shares of three BVI companies, and a receiver was appointed. The companies own the family’s London residence in a complex called The Bridge. In April 2019, Globe Investment Holdings Limited, a Jebel Ali Free Zone company, sued the BVI companies in Sharjah. It relied on documents that purported to impose a debt of about £115M on them. The Sharjah Court of First Instance dismissed the claim in March 2020, after experts called the documents fabricated. On April 6, 2021, the Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal ruled for Globe and ordered the BVI companies to pay 582.7 million dirhams. In August 2021, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts gave summary judgment against IGPL General Trading LLC, an Al Sari company, on its claim to a tenancy of the properties. A DIFC freezing order Globe obtained on May 3, 2023, was discharged on June 19, 2023.
On February 18, 2022, the bank and the BVI companies, which the bank now controls, sued the Al Saris, their companies, and Globe in the Commercial Court of the High Court of Justice in London. They obtained a worldwide freezing order the same day. On May 10, 2023, Mr Justice Butcher gave summary judgment on the Sharjah judgment for 382.8 million dirhams plus daily interest. The bank took possession of the London properties in September 2023. On November 20, 2023, Mr Justice Butcher sentenced Abdalla and Majid Al Sari to 24 months in prison for failing to give asset disclosure. Mohamed Al Sari received 21 months. The Court of Appeal dismissed Abdalla and Majid’s appeal on June 12, 2024.
Globe, its parent MENA Investment Holdings Limited, and MAS Capital Holdings Limited filed a defense in March 2024. Hamad Saif Hamad Abdalla Almheiri, a director of the Globe companies and a second cousin of Abdalla Al Sari, was also sued. On December 19, 2024, Mr Justice Foxton granted the bank’s application for a worldwide freezing order against him, and the order was made on January 15, 2025. In the same judgment, he ruled on the law governing the bank’s claims that Al Sari-linked defendants maliciously prosecuted the DIFC proceedings. He resolved an outstanding point on that issue on February 27, 2025. None of the defendants attended the May 2025 trial. On July 15, 2025, Mr Justice Calver held that the Globe documents and a tenancy agreement were backdated shams. He held that the Sharjah appeal judgment for Globe was obtained by fraud. He found that the Al Sari brothers controlled Globe, and he granted an anti-enforcement injunction against it. On October 17, 2025, Mrs Justice Dias sentenced Almheiri to two years in prison for contempt after finding he had given no asset disclosure under the January 2025 freezing order.
Timeline 15 events
-
JudgmentCourt commits Hamad Almheiri for contempt
Mrs Justice Dias committed Hamad Almheiri to the maximum term of two years’ imprisonment for breach of the worldwide freezing order, after finding he had given no asset disclosure.
Committal for Contempt of Court: Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC and others -v- Al Sari and othersCommercial Bank of Dubai PSC v Al Sari [2025] EWHC 2709 (Comm)
-
JudgmentHigh Court sentences Hamad Almheiri to two years for contempt
Mrs Justice Dias found that Almheiri had made no attempt to give asset disclosure under the January 2025 freezing order. He did not attend the hearing.
-
JudgmentHigh Court finds rival Sharjah judgment was obtained by fraud
Mr Justice Calver ruled that Globe Investment Holdings, which he found the Al Saris controlled, had procured its Sharjah judgment by fraud. He also found that Hamad Almheiri was involved in a scheme to defeat the bank’s £80M judgment.
-
JudgmentHigh Court finds the Sharjah judgment for Globe was obtained by fraud
After a trial the defendants did not attend, Mr Justice Calver held that the Globe documents and a tenancy agreement were backdated shams. He granted an anti-enforcement injunction against Globe.
Find Case Law: [2025] EWHC 1810 (Comm)Jones Day matter note, July 2025
-
OrderHigh Court issues follow-up ruling on applicable law issue
Mr Justice Foxton handed down [2025] EWHC 400 (Comm), resolving an outstanding issue left open by his December 2024 judgment on the law governing the bank’s malicious prosecution claims.
Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors v Al Sari & Ors [2025] EWHC 400 (Comm)
-
OrderCourt grants worldwide freezing order against Hamad Almheiri
The Commercial Court made a worldwide freezing order against Globe director Hamad Saif Hamad Abdalla Almheiri, requiring asset disclosure that he later failed to provide.
Committal for Contempt of Court: Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC and others -v- Al Sari and others
-
OrderHigh Court rules on governing law of DIFC malicious prosecution claims
In [2024] EWHC 3304 (Comm), Mr Justice Foxton ruled on the law governing the bank’s claims that Al Sari-linked defendants maliciously prosecuted DIFC proceedings. He also addressed the bank’s application for a worldwide freezing order against Hamad Almheiri.
Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors v Al Sari & Ors [2024] EWHC 3304 (Comm)
-
AppealCourt of Appeal upholds the committals of Abdalla and Majid Al Sari
The court dismissed their appeal against the contempt findings and the 24-month sentences.
-
JudgmentHigh Court sentences three Al Saris to prison for contempt
Mr Justice Butcher imposed 24 months on Abdalla and Majid Al Sari and 21 months on Mohamed Al Sari for failing to give asset disclosure under the freezing order.
Find Case Law: [2023] EWHC 3271 (Comm)Find Case Law: [2024] EWCA Civ 643
-
JudgmentHigh Court gives summary judgment enforcing the Sharjah judgment
Mr Justice Butcher ordered Abdalla and Majid Al Sari, FAL, and IGPL to pay 382.8 million dirhams plus 9,297.33 dirhams a day from April 28, 2023.
Find Case Law: [2025] EWHC 1810 (Comm)Find Case Law: [2024] EWCA Civ 643
-
FilingBank sues the Al Saris in London and obtains a freezing order
The bank and the BVI companies sued to enforce the Sharjah judgment and claim damages. Mrs Justice Cockerill granted a worldwide freezing order the same day.
-
JudgmentSharjah appeal court rules for Globe against the BVI companies
The Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal ordered the companies to pay 582.7 million dirhams plus 5% interest under the Globe documents. The English court later held this judgment was obtained by fraud.
-
EnforcementBVI court grants a charging order over the London property companies
The final charging order covered the shares of three BVI companies that own the Al Sari family’s London residence. A receiver was appointed to sell them.
Find Case Law: [2025] EWHC 1810 (Comm)Find Case Law: [2024] EWHC 3304 (Comm)
-
JudgmentSharjah court gives judgment for the bank for 433.8 million dirhams
The Sharjah Court of First Instance awarded 433.8 million dirhams (about $118.1M) plus 1% interest from December 4, 2012. The Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on February 27, 2017.
-
FilingBank sues FAL Oil and the Al Sari family in Sharjah
The bank claimed 472.7 million dirhams under credit facilities to FAL and personal guarantees, a week after obtaining a precautionary attachment over their UAE assets.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeWill the Commercial Court’s July 15, 2025, fraud judgment against Globe and the Al Sari-linked defendants still stand, unchallenged and unsettled, on November 30, 2027?
- Fraud judgment stands, no settlement90%
- Bank settles with the Al Saris4%
- Challenge to judgment still pending4%
- Fraud judgment set aside or reversed2%
- Resolves by
- Nov 30, 2027in 13 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The July 2025 fraud judgment is very likely to remain intact and unsettled on November 30, 2027 (90%). The defendants chose not to attend trial, no challenge appears in the record after more than a year, and three of them are already subject to contempt committals the Court of Appeal upheld.
How it resolves. Resolves “Fraud judgment stands” if, by November 30, 2027, no English court has set aside, varied on the merits, or reversed the July 15, 2025, judgment, no set-aside application or appeal against it is pending, and no settlement between the bank and the Al Sari defendants is publicly reported. Resolves “settlement” if a settlement between the bank and the Al Saris or Globe is publicly reported or recorded in a court order. Resolves “set aside or reversed” if a court sets aside or reverses the judgment’s core fraud findings. Resolves “still pending” if a set-aside application or appeal has been filed and remains undecided on November 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. English Commercial Court judgments given after trials the defendants did not attend, where defendants later seek to set them aside under CPR 39.3 or appeal out of time: Applications to set aside judgments given in a party’s absence succeed rarely, likely well under 10%, because the applicant must act promptly, explain the absence, and show a reasonable prospect of success. Late appeals by absent parties succeed even less often.
The merits are decided, and the record shows no scheduled ruling, appeal, or hearing, so no decisive step is expected within 36 months beyond continuing asset recovery. The question therefore asks whether the judgment survives. Set-aside applications after deliberate non-attendance rarely succeed because CPR 39.3 requires prompt action and a good reason for absence. Here more than a year has passed with no reported application, which weighs heavily against a successful challenge. The defendants’ conduct points the same way. The Al Saris and Almheiri ignored disclosure orders and were committed, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the 2024 appeal against the committals. The bank already holds possession of the London properties and a summary judgment, so it has little reason to compromise. Settlement is the leading alternative, perhaps as a way for the committed defendants to purge contempt or secure remission, but nothing in the record suggests talks. A small chance remains that a late challenge is filed and still undecided at the resolution date. The record has not been updated for 12.7 months, which limits confidence.
Defendants did not attend trial and filed no reported challenge · Long delay defeats prompt-application requirement under CPR 39.3 · Bank already controls London properties and holds summary judgment · Contempt committals upheld on appeal show entrenched non-cooperation · Record not updated for 12.7 months
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 8, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made