A sheikh facing significant financial liabilities might have to forfeit his £8.3 million mansion located on the UK’s priciest street, as he asserts it is his wife’s under Islamic law.

Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber, a billionaire originally from Saudi Arabia, claims that the luxurious family residence in Hampstead Garden, North London, belongs to his wife, Makiyah Al Jaber.

The issue was brought before London’s High Court following the collapse of one of the sheikh’s enterprises, leaving him with debts reportedly nearing £80 million.

Liquidators are seeking to settle these debts by targeting the opulent Winnington Road property, situated alongside the renowned Bishops Avenue, often dubbed ‘Billionaires’ Row’ for its extravagant homes.

The couple contended that despite the official ownership being in the sheikh’s name, the mansion doesn’t actually belong to him. Sheikh Al Jaber, whose wealth was estimated at over £5 billion in 2013, argued that the property should not be utilized to settle his financial obligations.

Mrs. Al Jaber asserted in court that she is the true beneficiary of the house, even though it is legally registered under her husband’s name, and therefore, it cannot be leveraged to clear his debts.

She told the judge she had always understood the house was held on trust for her, having been bought for her by her husband according to ‘Islamic custom’.

But a High Court judge, Deputy Master Joanna Valentine, has now thrown out their case – leaving Mrs Al Jaber potentially losing her family home of 34 years, where she raised the couple’s three children.

Billionaire Saudi-born businessman Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber (pictured) says his home in north London’s Hampstead Garden Suburb is the property of his wife

Makiyah Al Jaber (pictured, right, outside London’s High Court) faces losing her family home of 34 years, where she raised the couple’s three children

The judge also made an order that the pair are jointly responsible for paying the legal costs of the case, which the court heard run to almost £750,000 just on the side of the liquidators. 

The court was told that the house at the centre of the fight stands on Winnington Road, which overtook nearby Bishop’s Avenue as Britain’s most expensive street last year and has an average house price of almost £12million.

Famous residents of the suburb over the years include actress Elizabeth Taylor, Angel of the North sculptor Anthony Gormley, Lord Peter Mandelson and King Constantine II, the last king of Greece.

Mr Al Jaber, 67, is a Saudi businessman who latterly obtained Austrian citizenship, but whose family was raised by his wife Makiyah in the London mansion after she moved to the capital in 1992.

His fortune stems from a variety of businesses based around luxury hotels and real estate, oil and food.

One of his companies, MBI International & Partners Inc – an offshore entity based in the British Virgin Islands – ceased trading and went into liquidation in 2017.

A High Court judgment in 2023 ruled the firm’s liquidators were owed a debt by the sheikh in relation to valuable shares transferred out of that company in 2016.

That debt has now reached an estimated £80million, with steps being taken to charge part of it against the sheikh and his wife’s London family home.

The couple’s £8.3million is in Britain’s most expensive street, on the edge of north London’s Hampstead Garden Suburb

An interim charging order on the property was made in 2023, but the making of a final order was delayed by almost three years by other related legal proceedings.

Mrs Al Jaber argued she earned part ownership of the property through a ‘common intention constructive trust’ in her favour due to her ‘substantial contribution to the improvement of the property’ keeping house for 34 years and overseeing numerous renovations.

She also said she had a right to it via the principle of ‘proprietory estoppel’, having relied on her belief the house was hers over the past three decades, even if her husband had not actually intended it to be hers.

The judge dismissed her arguments, finding that the sheikh owned the house both in law and in reality.

The judge said: ‘The property in question is a family home. This is a matrimonial home, in which his wife had lived for a number of years.

‘In her evidence, the wife told me that the husband purchased the house and “told me that I owned it”.

‘When purchasing the house, the husband told her to look for what she wanted and he would buy it for her.

‘She said the husband is required to house the wife according to his means, because she has the custody and responsibility of the children.

‘She said it was her understanding that the husband could not sell such a property and that she would get to keep it if they ever separated.

‘The wife in her evidence said her understanding was based on a mutually understood Islamic custom which was described to me as, “The husband is responsible for providing a home for the wife and is responsible for buying her a house which is understood to be owned by her”.’

The judge told how ‘beneficial ownership’ could be ‘displaced by there being a common intention for the ownership to be otherwise’ – and how she was unable to rule that such an Islamic custom existed. 

She added: ‘The only evidence I have is the submissions of the wife. I don’t have before me any expert evidence on the existence and extent of such a custom. It is simply something I do not know.

‘Even if there is such a custom, what matters is what particularly these parties understood their rights in the property to be.

‘If it was that the husband was obliged to buy his wife a house, he could have done so legally.

‘Even if there is a custom upon marriage that the husband must buy a house owned by the wife, I have no idea to what extent these particular people felt themselves to be bound by it.

‘There are a number of occasions in previous legal proceedings in which the husband has this property as belonging to him legally and beneficially.

‘I’m satisfied that in court proceedings the husband has treated this property as his asset and not the wife’s.’

She told how Mrs Al Jaber would be ‘severely impacted as she lives in this property and has done since 1992′.

But she added: ‘I cannot find that the wife owned it beneficially pursuant to a common intention constructive trust.

‘No common intention as to any sharing of the beneficial interest is made out.

‘All of the family money is provided by the husband. Whilst there has certainly been time and effort against the positives, I cant be satisfied that she has taken detrimental reliance on the understanding that she was the owner. Therefore, I’m unable to find proprietory estoppel in this case.

‘I do appreciate how disappointing this must be for the wife, but my decision is that the beneficial ownership is the legal ownership.’

The judge went on to make a final order charging against the property, to be used as security against the sheikh’s debt.

‘The order has not yet been made that it is to be sold,’ she said.

‘If the order is made that the property be sold to satisfy a part of the debt, your interest as an occupier for a length of time is something we will consider.’

She went on to order that the wife and husband are jointly liable for paying the costs of the case, despite each arguing that the other one alone should have to pay them.

The sheikh’s lawyers called the liquidators’ £744,000 costs bill ‘breathtaking’ and ‘staggering’.

Mrs Al Jaber, representing herself, had told the judge that she should not have to pay costs, saying: ‘Because he is my husband, he is responsible’.

The judge ordered both were jointly liable and directed that 40 per cent of the bill, just under £300,000, must be paid up front on account.

The sheikh did not attend court with his wife for the hearing.