Janna Purdie provides an update on notice clauses & supporting evidence
In SAAD Investments v Al Sanea [2011] EWHC 2584 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 199 (Oct), the commercial court has provided an insight into the way it will construe notice clauses and the supporting evidence required when making applications.
The claimant (SICL), a company incorporated in Cayman Islands, was in official liquidation. The defendant (Mr Al Sanea) was a Saudi Arabian lived in Saudi Arabia. The parties entered into an agreement whereby Mr Al Sanea granted SICL a put option in relation to shares in a company. The King of Saudi Arabia had ordered Al Sanea to pay his own liabilities and those of his companies to Saudi creditors. In English proceedings, Al Sanea raised service issues while SICL sought a freezing order.
Service of the notice
The agreement required all notices served under it to be posted to a specific PO Box number. Walker J ruled that delivering the notice, to exercise the put option, to the post box provided strong evidence of compliance with the provision. However, although the supporting
