Author Topic: Saudi oil Sheikh £53m divorce settlement at London High Court.  (Read 1604 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

There was an interesting story in the MSM last week about a former US Pireill calendar pinup girl who after 12 years of marriage to a filthy rich Saudi Arab Sheik was dumped by him in favour of a young Lebanese tease.  The Sheik divorced her in accordance with the Islamic practise by saying three times, "I divorce you", or words to that effect.  As the good lady wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in Saudi Arabia and as she and her former spouse normally lived quite happily in London, she raised an action in the High Court in order to extract a divorce settlement in accordance with the lavish lifestyle she had been accustomed to.

The point being, isn't it interesting how good ole British Law is being used when it suits these foreigners?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 08:37:59 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Carana

Re: Saudi oil Sheikh £53m divorce settlement at London High Court.
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2016, 05:58:56 PM »
There was an interesting story in the MSM last week about a former US Pireill calendar pinup girl who after 12 years of marriage to a filthy rich Saudi Arab Sheik was dumped by him in favour of a young Lebanese tease.  The Sheik divorced her in accordance with the Islamic practise by saying three times, "I divorce you", or words to that effect.  As the good lady wouldn't have had a leg to stand on in Saudi Arabia and as she and her former spouse normally lived quite happily in London, she raised an action in the High Court in order to extract a divorce settlement in accordance with the lavish lifestyle she had been accustomed to.

The point being, isn't it interesting how good ole British Law is being used when it suits these foreigners?


Are you referring to this girl, John?

 Ex-model wins £75m divorce settlement from Saudi billionaire

Christina Estrada awarded sum, including £53m cash payment, at high court from former husband Sheikh Walid Juffali
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/08/ex-model-christina-estrada-wins-53m-pounds-cash-divorce-saudi-ex-husband


I haven't quite understood the ins-and-outs of the aspects of Sharia law that are allowed in the UK. On my list.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 08:31:42 PM by John »

Offline John

Re: Saudi oil Sheikh £53m divorce settlement at London High Court.
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2016, 08:08:09 PM »

Are you referring to this girl, John?

 Ex-model wins £75m divorce settlement from Saudi billionaire

Christina Estrada awarded sum, including £53m cash payment, at high court from former husband Sheikh Walid Juffali
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/08/ex-model-christina-estrada-wins-53m-pounds-cash-divorce-saudi-ex-husband


I haven't quite understood the ins-and-outs of the aspects of Sharia law that are allowed in the UK. On my list.

Yes, that's the one, my post was purposely vague. Apparently this is the second divorce settlement made against this Saudi chap in a London Court.  His first wife, Basma Al-Sulaiman, with whom he has three children got £40 million some years back but lost £21m as a result of the market collapse.  First time bitten, twice shy, let's hope he drafted a prenup for his third attempt.

It was also revealed that Sheikh Juffali who is currently receiving cancer treatment in Switzerland and was too poorly to attend the divorce case hearing in London has apparently transferred ownership of the bulk of his estate to his four children.  One such property, the matrimonial home at Bishopsgate's House, London, is set in a 33 acres bordering Windsor Great Park has allegedly been transferred to the only child he has with Christine Estrada, a  13-year-old daughter called Serena/Sirina, who is currently being schooled in Switzerland. More...

It seems the Sheikh attempted to thwart the divorce hearings by claiming that he had Diplomatic Immunity, a claim which the Appeal Court in London later held as irrelevant. The bench, headed by the master of the rolls, Lord Dyson, had been forced to consider whether the High Court was right to dismiss as “spurious” the Saudi businessman’s claim to have been protected from litigation because of his role as permanent representative to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) for the Caribbean island of St Lucia.  More...

« Last Edit: July 11, 2016, 09:18:05 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.