A judge has come in for stinging criticism from the Court of Appeal in a judgment concerning the romantic life of the Prince of Saudi Arabia.
The court set aside Mr Justice Peter Smith’s judgment last November, in which he awarded Janan Harb £20m in cash and properties, and ordered a retrial. Smith J had ruled that a binding contract had been made between Harb and Prince Abdul Aziz bin Fahd that she should retract statements she had made about the prince in return for £20m. Harb married Prince Fahd in 1968 but left Saudi Arabia in 1970 after the relationship broke down. She remains married to the Prince under Sharia law.
Lawyers for the Prince highlighted Smith J’s “shortcomings” in the appeal, accusing him of “apparent bias” against Blackstone Chambers. Lord Pannick QC had written a newspaper article criticising Smith J’s handling of an unrelated case involving British Airways, in which the judge recused himself from the case after complaining about losing his luggage on a flight home from Florence. Smith J then fired off a furious letter to Blackstone stating he “would no longer support” Pannick’s chambers. Pannick appeared for the Prince at an earlier stage of the Harb case.
In Harb v Prince Aziz [2016] EWCA Civ 556, Lord Dyson allowed the Prince’s appeal but rejected the claim that Smith J was biased.
In a stern rebuke to Smith J, however, his judgment states: “It was a shocking and, we regret to say, disgraceful letter to write. It shows a deeply worrying and fundamental lack of understanding of the proper role of a judge.”
The Prince’s solicitor, Steven Morris, partner at Howard Kennedy, says: “The judgment of the Court of Appeal has re-affirmed the confidence of the Prince in the fair and independent resolution of disputes before the English Courts.
“That confidence was severely undermined by the judgment of Mr Justice Peter Smith; that judgment was in key respects inconsistent with the written and oral testimony of Mrs Harb, the surrounding documents and the inherent probabilities.”
