The widow of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd bin Abdulaziz has won a five-year legal battle over the ownership of a 10-bedroom mansion on London’s billionaires' row.
The High Court ruled in favour of Aljawharah bint Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al Ibrahim in the case which involved Kenstead Hall on Bishops Avenue in north London, one of the capital’s most expensive streets.
The property had been signed over to her in 2011 by the Lichtenstein-based Asturion Foundation set up to manage the foreign property portfolio of the late king, following instructions he had given before his death in 2005.
Also signed over was a property in France – Chateau de l'Aurore in Golfe-Juan, land in Grünwald, Germany, and an interest in the Al Nahda Palace in Marbella.
But the foundation challenged the transfer.
The court heard that King Fahd had given instructions to his adviser Me Faisal Assaly for the four properties, including Kenstead Hall, to be transferred into his wife's name in 2001.
However, none of the instructions had been carried out by the time of his death in August 2005.
Following his death a Council of Heirs was created to manage his affairs.
During this time, Mr Assaly completed the king's wishes, transferring the German property to Ms Al Ibrahim in 2006, the Spanish property and Kenstead Hall in 2011 and finally the French chateau in 2012.
“In short, the delays at least partly reflect a question which developed about whether consent of the Council of Heirs was needed, and had been given, before the transfers could be effected,” Mr Justice Adam Johnson said.
“Mr Assaly determined that he should proceed in light of the instructions given to him by the late king, and did so.”
The foundation had argued that its purpose was to distribute the late king's assets to his heirs.
“It is said that the effect of the transfer of Kenstead Hall to the princess, either alone or in combination with the transfers of the other properties, was to confer on her benefits in excess of her rightful share, and that was contrary to the foundation's purpose,” Mr Justice Johnson said.
However, Mr Justice Johnson ruled that, aside from poor record keeping by Mr Assaly, there was “no improper disposal of the foundation's assets”.
“There was no mistake by Mr Assaly about either his entitlement or obligation to transfer Kenstead Hall,” the judge ruled.
“He was both entitled and obliged to act as he did. Consequently, there was no mistake of sufficient seriousness to create an equity entitling the foundation to rescind the transfer of Kenstead Hall to the princess.
“There was certainly enrichment, but it was not unjust. My overall conclusion is that the claims by the foundation fail.”
