Maan Al Sanea Case and the Immovables Rule

As CBIA is investigating and has discussed in other publications, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upheld the primacy of the immovables rule in the case of Kireeva Vs Bedhzamov, for which judgment was given in November, 2024. The outcome of this case was then very soon after submitted as supporting arguments by both sides of a similar case involving Maan Al Sanea as his creditors target the assets he has amassed in London.

Almeqham Vs Al Sanea and Others

Having been appointed in 2022 by the Saudi Arabin Courts as the liquidation trustee concerned with  recovering Al Sanea and Saad Trading, Contracting & Financial Services Company (STC) debts, and recognised as the foreign appointed trustee under the terms of the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006—that automatically granted a stay and suspension on any measures against the debtors' properties in England—in 2024, Aiman Meqham Almeqham hoped to prove that Al Sanea’s properties were being held in trust for him or his company, STC, and that failing to prove this he wished to prove that since being issued with freezing orders Mr Al-Sanea had tried steps to conceal his assets.

Almeqham alleged that, in 2012, the Saad Group conveyed 19 English properties to the parties who were the Other defendants in the case and includes his associates and related companies, in return for six parcels of land in Saudi Arabia: his alternative Claim being then that the 2012 transfers were made for the purposes of putting the properties beyond the reach of Mr Al Sanea and STC's creditors. These transfers were made after the Saudi Arabian courts determined that Mr Al Sanea engaged in fraudulent transfers of land to his wife and children between February and May 2009 and had, as a result, ordered these transactions to be reversed and the King of Saudi Arabia issued asset freezes on Al Sanea and his family’s holdings in May 2009.[1]

In the Almeqham Vs Al Sanea and Others case, Al Sanea’s legal team believed that the Supreme Court's obiter comments in Kireeva meant that solely the recognition of a foreign appointed trustee under the CBIR does not in and of itself create an exception to the immovables rule.

The decision

Al Sanea’s attempt to keep Almeqham’s hands off of his properties was upheld in favour of Al Sanea by the High Court but importantly drew the stipulation that a bankruptcy trustee that has obtained recognition in England may apply for relief under article 21 of the CBIR to gain powers to deal with the debtor's immovable assets in England and thereby gain an interest in the property, although at the time this condition had not been fulfilled by the bankruptcy trustee.

The judge agreed  that the immovables rule did apply as ‘recognition of the foreign proceedings … does not itself vest rights or interests in English land in the foreign representative without an order under article 21’.

Therefore, Almeqham, as the liquidation trustee did have standing to bring a claim to establish his rights over the English land, but only following a successful article 21 application made in the proper manner, which he had not done. The court determined that there was a significant matter to be decided on the merits of the liquidation trustee's strong argument that the jurisdictional gateways applied to property situated within the jurisdiction and determined that Almeqham had successfully pleaded the claim that there was a legitimate matter to be heard despite the relevant Saad Group entities not being parties to the proceedings.

Although a method for applying to gain control of a debtor's English immovable property was indicated as existing as part of the judgment of this case​—the application for relief under Article 21 of the CBIR for an order entrusting to them the administration and realisation of those assets—without such an order having been obtained, the immovables rule presented an immovable obstacle to Al Sanea’s properties being deemed qualified as up for grabs by his Saudi insolvency trustees.

For the sake of clarity, students and practitioners of law reading CBIA, and perhaps SEO, it may be useful to define Article 21 of the CBIR:

Article 21(1) of the CBIR provides:

"Upon recognition of a foreign proceeding, whether main or non-main, where necessary to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of the creditors, the court may, at the request of the foreign representative, grant any appropriate relief, including-

…

(d) providing for the examination of witnesses, the taking of evidence or the delivery of information concerning the debtor's assets, affairs, rights, obligations or liabilities;

…

(g) granting any additional relief that may be available to a British insolvency officeholder under the law of Great Britain, including any relief provided under paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.

Sources

[1] High Court of Justice, Almeqham Vs Al Sanea and Others, 14 February 2025

[2] Andrew Cooke, Owen Roberts, and Joe Butler, The Immovables Rule: Exceptions and Implications, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, 20 July 2025