The case of Aboualsaud v Aboukhater and Other [2007], concerned an agency agreement in which a Claimant asserted the right to a commission pursuant to a binding oral agreement. The claimant was executive vice president of the Kuwait Investment Office in London and financial adviser to a Kuwaiti oil company and to the Minister of Energy. The first accused was a commercial director of the government office of one of the United Arab Emirates in London. The second defendant, the father of the first defendant, was the ultimate beneficiary of a series of large hotels.
In the 1990s, the claimant and the first defendant met in London. They subsequently became close friends. They saw each other every week and spoke on the phone most days. Then, in late 2002, the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant had told him about the sale of one of his father’s hotels. The specific hotel in question was the ‘Monte Carlo Grand Hotel’ (“MGCH”).
The plaintiff further contended that a binding oral agreement had been reached with the first defendant. He asserted that the settlement arose out of several meetings and phone calls and that the terms were that if he presented a party to the defendants, and that party purchased MCGH for a price acceptable to them, it would be entitled to a $21.5 million commission. euro.
In December 2004, MCGH was sold to Kingdom, a member of the FHR European Ventures LLP joint venture. The claimant argued that the sale had been facilitated by the Royal Highness’s introduction of him Prince Al Waleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud, who was the principal owner of Kingdom.
The defendants denied that there was any binding agreement for the payment of the commission in the terms alleged by the plaintiff. The defendants felt that the case was simply one in which a friend had sought the help of another friend, and that if that help was successful, then payment in recognition of that help could be expected.
The case proceeded to trial.
The question that arose to be resolved by the courts was whether there was an agency contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the latter acting for himself and for his father.
The court held that, according to the evidence, the account of the first defendant was more convincing than that of the plaintiff. This was mainly with regard to the essential points in dispute, namely, how the discussions between the friends arose, how the discussions progressed, and what was the result of those discussions.
The court considered that, on that basis, there could be no agency agreement on which a binding legal contract could be established. Therefore, judgment would be entered in favor of the defendants.