[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Aziz v Lim [2012] EWHC 915 (QB) (05 April 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/915.html Cite as: [2012] EWHC 915 (QB)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		5 April 2012

MR JUSTICE LINDBLOM:

Introduction

1. Before the court are two claims. Both are in the tort of conversion. The first relates to a diamond bracelet ("the Diamond Bracelet") belonging to the claimant and said to be worth about US$5.545 million, which the defendant is alleged to have sold in or about July 2008 without the claimant's consent. The second claim concerns two diamonds belonging to the claimant, which the defendant is alleged to have sold in December 2009, again without the claimant's consent. The more valuable of the two diamonds is the "Blue Diamond", which is estimated by the claimant to have a minimum value of US$12.7 million. The other is the "Yellow Diamond", estimated by the claimant to have a minimum value of US$1 million.
2. The claimant seeks damages from the defendant to the full value of the Diamond Bracelet on the basis that the Diamond Bracelet has been sold and cannot now be recovered.
3. The claimant has also begun proceedings in Switzerland for the recovery of the diamonds from Gemcut SA ("Gemcut"), which obtained possession of them from the defendant in a purported sale for US$7.7 million. The claimant has said that if judgment is given in her favour in the present proceedings, she will ask the court to make an order that has the effect of preserving her interest in the diamonds, and her right to sue for the recovery of them.

Procedural history

4. On 26 January 2010, on a without notice application by the claimant, Sir Thomas Morison (sitting as a judge of the High Court) made a worldwide freezing order against the defendant and gave permission to the claimant to serve the claim form in these proceedings on the defendant in Brunei. The claimant was also granted a freezing injunction against another party, Mr Solomon, who was joined as second defendant. Later, however, after the claimant had received and considered an affidavit sworn by Mr Solomon, proceedings against him were discontinued by consent. The defendant was served with the freezing order and other documents before the return date, 2 February 2010. The injunction was continued on the return date after a hearing at which the defendant did not appear and was not represented. The freezing injunction is still in place. It was made clear to me that if the claimant were to succeed at trial she would ask the court to extend the freezing injunction.
5. Other steps taken by the claimant, relevant to these proceedings, are described in the affidavit of her solicitor, Matthew Dowd, sworn on 26 January 2010 in support of the application for a freezing injunction. Mr Dowd explains in his affidavit what has been done in an effort to recover the diamonds for the claimant. In January 2010 Mr Dowd's colleague, Mr Bateman, reported the theft of the diamonds to the police at Notting Hill Police Station. The police asked their counterparts in Switzerland to seize the diamonds from a Mr Aldridge. In due course an Investigating Magistrate was appointed in Switzerland. He seized the diamonds. The Blue Diamond appears to be intact; the Yellow Diamond, however, seems to have been cut slightly. Before the diamonds can be returned to the claimant, the Swiss court will need to determine whether good title in them passed to Mr Aldridge. Meanwhile, the claimant has instructed lawyers in Singapore and Brunei to prevent the defendant from dealing with the proceeds of their sale. To this end, the Singapore lawyers obtained an injunction freezing the defendant's assets in Singapore, up to a total of US$7m. The bank account into which the proceeds of sale had been transferred was frozen, and proceedings were served on the defendant by the Brunei lawyers. The claimant acknowledges that it will be necessary to consider what should happen to the proceeds of sale of the diamonds should the Swiss court order that they are returned to her. However, unless and until any such order is made, the claimant will maintain that she has suffered a loss equal to the value of the diamonds, which she is entitled to take steps to recover. And even if the diamonds are eventually recovered, the claimant says she will still have suffered substantial loss through the defendant's wrongdoing, at least in the expense she has incurred in having to deal with it. On 1 November 2010 the proceedings in Singapore were stayed, with the freezing injunction in that jurisdiction remaining in effect. On 26 January 2012 the claimant began the Swiss proceedings against Gemcut. Those proceedings are still at an early stage.
6. The essence of the defendant's case in defending these proceedings is that she obtained and sold the diamonds with the authority and consent of the claimant, and that the claimant instructed her to apply most of the proceeds of sale to pay off debts owed to casinos, which, though in her (the defendant's) name, were in fact debts owed by the claimant. However, it became clear that, even on the defendant's account, she still had at least US$2 million of the claimant's money, beyond the total of the debts she said she had had to pay on the claimant's behalf. On 7 July 2011 the claimant's solicitors wrote to the defendant's asking them to confirm that she had no claim to that money. Failing that, the claimant would apply for summary judgment. No such confirmation came. Accordingly, on 30 August 2011, the claimant applied for summary judgment. By then it had become clear that the sum held by the defendant on behalf of the claimant was at least US$3.7 million. This was explained in Mr Dowd's witness statement of 30 August 2011 in support of the application for summary judgment. The claimant's solicitors clarified the scope of the application for summary judgment, in a letter dated 25 September 2011. The hearing was to have taken place in November 2011. At no stage did the defendant offer any explanation in order to justify her retention of the US$3.7 million. Instead, in a letter from her solicitors, dated 8 November 2011, she made an open offer in full and final settlement of the application for summary judgment to pay the claimant US$3.7 million, and her costs of the application. The application was adjourned to permit discussion between the parties to continue, and – the date of the trial being so close – was not restored. The claimant says, however, that this history shows the defendant still holding on to money that, even on her own case, is due to the claimant, implicitly admitting that it is.

The absence of the defendant from trial

7. In a letter dated 27 February 2012, which was eight days before the date fixed for the trial, the defendant wrote to the court to say that she would not be attending the trial. Although she asserted that she did not have sufficient funds to afford the representation she would require, she did not suggest that the trial ought not to proceed. She did not seek an adjournment. Rather, she asked the court to consider her defence and her evidence. When the hearing began on 6 March 2012 counsel for the claimant, Mr Max Mallin, submitted that the trial should continue, and could fairly continue, in the defendant's absence. Having considered the contents of the defendant's letter and Mr Mallin's submissions, I decided, in accordance with CPR 39.3 (1), that the trial should proceed in the defendant's absence. The reasons for that decision are set out in a short judgment, which I gave on 5 March 2012 and a copy of which is annexed to this judgment. On 6 and 7 March I heard the claimant's case, and on 12 March, Mr Mallin's closing submissions on her behalf.

The facts in outline

8. The claimant is the ex-wife of His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei, whom she married in 1981. The claimant and the Sultan divorced in 2003. They have four children. Following the divorce settlement, the claimant became an extremely wealthy woman in her own right.
9. The Sultan gave the Blue Diamond to the claimant as a gift in 1986. It is a pear-shaped, flawless, vivid blue diamond weighing 12.71 carats. The Yellow Diamond was also a gift from the Sultan to the claimant. It is a cut-cornered, rectangular, fancy vivid diamond of 27.10 carats.
10. In January 2003 the claimant employed the defendant as her badminton coach. Later the claimant engaged the defendant as her bodyguard and personal assistant. In this capacity, the defendant travelled all over the world with the claimant and spent long periods at the claimant's homes in London, Brunei and Singapore. The claimant trusted the defendant.
11. The claimant contends that in or about July 2008 the defendant obtained two of her bracelets, one of which was the Diamond Bracelet. The claimant says that the defendant took the Diamond Bracelet without her permission and went with it to Mr Solomon, a jeweller in Hatton Garden; that Mr Solomon arranged its sale to Mr Aldridge, who worked for Gemcut, a jewellery company based in Geneva, for US$5.545 million; and that she knew nothing of this until she later discovered the theft of the diamonds. The circumstances in which the defendant obtained the Diamond Bracelet, and the basis on which she sold it, are in dispute. In short, as I have said, the defendant contends that the claimant got her to sell the Diamond Bracelet and use the money to pay off her – the claimant's – gambling debts. The claimant says that it was not until she received Mr Solomon's second affidavit, which he swore on 1 February 2010, that she became aware that the defendant had sold the Diamond Bracelet through him in 2008. When that evidence emerged, the claimant's Particulars of Claim were amended to include a claim relating to the Diamond Bracelet.
12. The claimant says that in June or July 2009, the defendant persuaded her – the claimant's – adopted daughter, Afifa Abdullah, to lend her the diamonds; that she went again to Mr Solomon and arranged for him to make replicas of the diamonds; that she then returned the diamonds to Afifa; that in November 2009 she again persuaded Ms Abdullah to lend her the diamonds; that this time she did not give them back to Ms Abdullah but kept them and gave Ms Abdullah the replicas; that, in December 2009, the defendant went with Mr Solomon to Geneva and sold the diamonds to Gemcut for a price of US$7.7 million; and that she – the claimant – only found out about all this after it had happened. The defendant denies that version of events. She says that, in her dealings with the diamonds, she had the claimant's authority and approval throughout.
13. Early in December 2009, shortly before the claimant discovered the theft of the diamonds, the defendant resigned from her employment with the claimant, with effect from January 2010. She said she was ill – that she had a tumour on one of her eyes. The claimant says that on about 14 December 2009, she sent Ms Abdullah with what she then thought was the Blue Diamond to her friend – a jeweller – Mrs Moussaieff, to have the ring in which the stone was set resized. Mrs Moussaieff told her that the stone was not the Blue Diamond but a replica. The claimant says that on 30 December 2009 Ms Abdullah came to her and told her she thought the defendant was responsible for the disappearance of both of the diamonds.
14. On 1 January 2010, in Brunei, the defendant went to a meeting at the home of the parents of the claimant's nephew and aide, Idris Ja'afar. Mr Ja'afar and his parents were present. The defendant gave various conflicting accounts of her dealings with the diamonds. She at first denied having been in London and having had the diamonds. She retracted that assertion when Ms Abdullah and Ms Masnunah Minudin, the claimant's head bodyguard and administrator, arrived. Then she reverted to the story she had told to Ms Abdullah, namely that she had needed the diamonds to show a co-investor in a property development. The Brunei police were called, and took the defendant into custody.
15. The defendant provided four witness statements to the Brunei police. Her accounts vary. In the end, however, she admitted to stealing the diamonds from the claimant. The claimant says those statements were freely given and represent proper confessions. The defendant, however, says that each of the statements was improperly extracted from her and none of them represents the truth.
16. On 4 January 2010 Mr Ja'afar and the defendant met. Mr Ja'afar taped their conversation. The recording contains clear admissions on the part of the defendant, in the course of which she accepted that she had taken the diamonds to pay off her gambling debts. In that recorded conversation she denied any knowledge of the Diamond Bracelet. The defendant says that these admissions were also improperly extracted from her and do not represent the truth.
17. Between 5 and 10 January 2010 the defendant sent a series of text messages to Mr Ja'far, in which she sought his help in mediating between her and the claimant.

The issues for the court

18. There are three principal issues between the parties in these proceedings:

(1) Is the defendant liable to the claimant for the conversion of the diamonds?

(2) Is the defendant liable to the claimant for the conversion of the Diamond Bracelet?

(3) If liability is established, what is the appropriate remedy?

The law

19. The necessary elements of the tort of conversion are set out in paragraph 17-07 of Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (20^th edition), as follows:

"… [Conversion] is an act of deliberate dealing with a chattel in a manner inconsistent with another's right whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it."

This simple statement of the law was accepted as accurately summarizing the tort of conversion in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 & 5) [2002] 2 AC 883. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said this (at pp. 1084 and 1085):

"38. … Denial of title is not of itself conversion: see section 11(3) of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. To constitute conversion there must be a concomitant deprivation of use and possession. In support of this submission Mr Donaldson fastened upon a statement in Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 17^th ed (1995), p 636, para 13-12: "conversion is an act of deliberate dealing with a chattel in a manner inconsistent with another's right whereby that other is deprived of the use and possession of it". … A similar passage appears in Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts, 21^st ed (1996), pp 97-98. …

39. … I need not repeat the journey through the textbooks and authorities on which your Lordships were taken. Conversion of goods can occur in so many different circumstances that framing a precise definition of universal application is well nigh impossible. In general, the basic features of the tort are threefold. First, the defendant's conduct was inconsistent with the rights of the owner (or other person entitled to possession). Second, the conduct was deliberate, not accidental. Third, the conduct was so extensive as encroachment on the rights of the owner as to exclude him from use and possession of the goods. The contrast is with lesser acts of interference. If these cause damage they may give rise to claims for trespass or in negligence, but they do not constitute conversion.

40. The judicially approved description of the tort in Clerk & Lindsell encapsulates, in different language, these basic ingredients. …

41. Whether the owner is excluded from possession may sometimes depend upon whether the wrongdoer exercised dominion over the goods. Then the intention with which acts were done may be material. …

42. Similarly, mere unauthorised retention of another's goods is not conversion of them. Mere possession of another's goods without title is not necessarily inconsistent with the rights of the owner. To constitute conversion detention must be adverse to the owner, excluding him from the goods. It must be accompanied by an intention to keep the goods. Whether the existence of this intention can properly be inferred depends on the circumstances of the case. …"

On behalf of the claimant, Mr Mallin adopted the formulation in Clerk & Lindsell. He submitted that no controversial issues of law arise from the facts of this case. Rather, the exercise for the court is one of applying well established principles of law to the facts. I agree.

The evidence

The evidence for the claimant

20. The evidence for the claimant is contained in witness statements of numerous witnesses. A list of those witness statements is annexed to this judgment. I have taken account of all of that evidence. The claimant's principal witnesses also gave oral evidence at trial.

The evidence of Afifa Abdullah

21. Ms Abdullah gave oral evidence. Her written evidence is in her witness statement dated 13 October 2011.
22. Ms Abdullah was asked to comment on the contention, in paragraph 17 of the Amended Defence, that she had been asked "on a number of occasions" by the claimant to sell jewellery on the claimant's behalf. Ms Abdullah said that this was not true and that she had not been involved in selling any of the claimant's jewellery.
23. In her oral evidence-in-chief and in paragraphs 9 to 16 of her witness statement, Ms Abdullah explained in detail when she first lent the diamonds to the defendant "in or around July 2009". She was asked why she had handed over the rings to the defendant. She said she trusted the defendant, who was her "best friend". She said the jewellery was taken without the claimant's knowledge, as the defendant "only wanted it for a few hours and then she would give it back". The defendant told her she was doing a property deal and needed to borrow something valuable from the claimant's jewellery collection so that she could show the people involved in the deal that she was serious about it. Ms Abdullah met the defendant in Aspinalls casino and gave her the Yellow Diamond. She could not remember whether she also gave her a heart-shaped ring. She later met the defendant at the claimant's home in London, and the defendant suggested that the Blue Diamond be given to her instead of the heart-shaped ring. The defendant said she was not to tell anyone about the rings, including the claimant. Asked why she gave the defendant the rings, she said that she thought the defendant really needed her help and that she felt sorry for her because her mother was sick. Ms Abdullah said that she had been "naïve".
24. Ms Abdullah was asked to comment on the contentions made in paragraph 30 of the Amended Defence, about a conversation between the defendant and the claimant in the Wynn Club in Macau in "about early November 2009". The defendant asserts that, during this conversation, she told the claimant about the telephone call from a Mr Zaki, regarding unpaid gambling debts. She also contends that the claimant asked her whether she had arranged for replicas to be made for the diamonds, which she confirmed she had; that she – the defendant – was asked to find a buyer for the diamonds; that the proceeds of the sale were to be paid into the defendant's bank account; and that the defendant was then told not to say anything to anyone about the arrangements and to wait for instructions. Ms Abdullah said she was not aware of this conversation.
25. Ms Abdullah was asked to comment on paragraph 32 of the Amended Defence, which asserts that in late November 2009 the defendant received a telephone call from Ms Abdullah, telling her that the claimant wanted to "pass her something" and that the defendant should go to London to collect it. Ms Abdullah said that this was also untrue.
26. Ms Abdullah said that she stayed in London in December 2009. She was in touch with the defendant by text messages, and they discussed how she was to pass the defendant the diamonds, which she had agreed to lend her a second time. The defendant told Ms Abdullah that she would fly to London and Ms Abdullah should meet her and give her the diamonds. The details of the arrangements for the meeting were noted in paragraph 24 of Ms Abdullah's witness statement, which states that she took the rings out of the safe and gave them to the defendant in a "self-seal bag". The defendant then told her that she would return them "in a few hours time". In her oral evidence Ms Abdullah confirmed that she met the defendant "around the corner" from her London home and that she passed the two rings to the defendant, who then left to "meet the property people". Ms Abdullah said that, after a few hours, the defendant came back in a taxi. The Defendant passed the rings back to Ms Abdullah in a plastic self-sealed bag, which she put back into the claimant's safe cabinet. Ms Abdullah said the defendant offered her £100,000 as a "thank you" present for helping her. Ms Abdullah had said she thought £100,000 was too much and had agreed to £50,000.
27. Ms Abdullah was asked to comment on paragraph 34 of the Amended Defence, which describes a meeting between the defendant and Ms Abdullah near a pub in Kensington on 3 December 2009, at which it says the defendant received the rings from Ms Abdullah, and asserts that Ms Abdullah told the defendant not to tell anyone that she was in London. Ms Abdullah said this statement was untrue. She said that it was actually the defendant who had told Ms Abdullah not to tell anyone that she, the defendant, was in London.
28. Ms Abdullah said that, on 13 December 2009, the claimant decided to look at her rings. She said that when the claimant saw the ring with – as she thought – the Yellow Diamond in it, she remarked that the stone looked "orangey". Ms Abdullah said that the claimant tried on the ring with – as she thought – the Blue Diamond in it, but it did not fit her, so she decided to have it resized and told Ms Abdullah to take it to Mrs Moussaief to be altered. Ms Abdullah said that one of Mrs Moussaief's staff had checked the ring and told Ms Abdullah that it was not a real diamond, but a fake. When Ms Abdullah told the claimant this, the claimant was "panicking and really worried".
29. Ms Abdullah said that she called the defendant on the same day to ask her about the Blue Diamond. The defendant told her she had not handed the ring to the property people and that she had held on to the ring for the "whole time". However, she would try to find out what had happened to the Blue Diamond. Ms Abdullah said she did not then disbelieve her. But the defendant was worried about her telling the claimant about the rings. On 17 December 2009 the defendant sent her a text message saying:

"Fi, hope u dun tell mama tat I asked u to help me".

Ms Abdullah said she had repeatedly asked the defendant in text messages and on MSN whether she had been in contact with the property people. The defendant said she had not heard from them. The defendant then told her that she would resign and then look for the property people. Ms Abdullah said that on 25 December 2009 she sent a text message to the defendant saying the Yellow Diamond was going to be checked. She said that she was beginning to be suspicious of the defendant and she wanted to see how the defendant reacted to this news. The defendant asked her again whether she had told the claimant and she said she had not. The defendant then sent a text message which said:

"Please don't tell mama or I'll go to jail".

Ms Abdullah said that a few days later she was in a casino and Ms Minudin told her that the defendant was going to resign because she had a brain tumour. Ms Abdullah said she had been told by the defendant that she had an eye tumour. Ms Abdullah said that when she asked the defendant about the different tumours, the defendant had said they were the same thing. Ms Abdullah said she thought that if the defendant could lie about her health, she could be lying about the diamonds. Ms Abdullah said that on 30 December 2009 she told her sister what had happened to the rings. The claimant was told, and asked Ms Abdullah if the stone she had thought was the Yellow Diamond was also not real. Ms Abdullah said she took it to Mrs Moussaieff, who told her it was not a diamond.

30. Ms Abdullah described the meeting at the home of Mr Ja'afar's parents in Brunei on 1 January 2010. She said she had gone back to Brunei to confront the defendant. She said she went to her uncle's house, where Mr Ja'afar, her uncle, her aunt and another cousin were present, and asked the defendant about the rings. The defendant said she did not know what Ms Abdullah was talking about. One of the Sultan's staff called the police. They took the defendant away for questioning.
31. Ms Abdullah was asked to comment on the section of the Amended Defence headed "The forced "confessions" to the Royal Brunei police", and, in particular, paragraphs 73 to 76, which state:

"73. The Defendant told Idris that the Claimant had gambled heavily and needed to pay off her gambling debts, to which Idris responded "Yes I know". The Defendant told Idris that the Claimant had instructed her to sell the Diamonds to pay off the gambling debts which the Defendant had incurred on the Claimant's behalf with the Five Casinos and explained that the Claimant had instructed the Defendant to copy the Diamonds in London and to sell them in Geneva. Idris told the Defendant to leave the Claimant out of the picture. The Defendant became worried when she heard this, and asked Idris what he meant and whether she would be blamed for the sale of the Diamonds. Idris nodded his head in the affirmative.

74. Idris told the Defendant that if she did not do what he wanted her to do, she would be put in jail in Brunei. He asked the Defendant to think about it and then left the room. Rahimin, the Claimant's sister's son, then came into the room where the Defendant was, started shouting obscenities at the Defendant, and threatened to hit her. Idris returned to the room and asked Rahimin to calm down and leave the room. Idris then asked the Defendant whether she had made a decision as to whether she would be a scapegoat for the Claimant as regards the sale of the Diamonds. He stated that people who said bad things about the Claimant were sent to jail, and said that the Defendant, too, would be put in jail in Brunei if she did not co-operate, and that nobody knew what could happen when she was in jail. He said that the Sultan of Brunei himself was now involved in the matter, that the police were coming and that the Defendant was in deep trouble.

75. The Defendant, concerned that her liberty and well being were under threat, reluctantly agreed to co-operate and to take the blame for the sale of the Diamonds to protect the Claimant. Idris told the Defendant words to the effect that when she took the blame for the Claimant, she had to make it look real.

76. Idris then left the room, and telephoned Pehin Ashrin, a high-ranking officer in the Brunei police force. About an hour later, more than ten Brunei police officers, some in uniform and others in plain clothes, arrived at Datin Salbiah's house. Idris informed the Defendant that he would be keeping her passport, and told her to follow the police officers. As the Defendant was leaving Datin Salbiah's house with the police officers, she overheard Idris telling one of the policemen, Pengiran Mettusin, that he would get back to him after he had talked to the Claimant about how to handle this matter."

As to paragraph 73, Ms Abdullah said that the defendant had said nothing in her presence about the claimant's gambling debts, nor had she heard Mr Ja'afar's response. She also said that she had not heard the defendant tell Mr Ja'afar that the claimant had instructed her to sell or copy the diamonds, nor did she hear Mr Ja'afar telling the defendant to "leave [the claimant] out of the picture". Ms Abdullah also said that none of the statements listed in paragraphs 74 to 76 had been made in her presence.

The evidence of the claimant

32. The claimant gave oral evidence, elaborating that contained in her second witness statement, dated 11 October 2011.
33. She was asked to comment on the section of the Amended Defence headed "Provision of gambling facilities on behalf of the claimant", and in particular paragraph 7, which states that the claimant asked Ms Minudin and the defendant to open credit facilities for her at "various casinos". The claimant said she did not ask the defendant or Ms Minudin to open credit facilities for her in their names. The claimant said they had opened credit facilities for themselves. She mentioned her use of the defendant's credit facilities in paragraph 15 of her second witness statement:

"On my visits to London and Macau I spent time at casinos… . The Defendant regularly accompanied me on these visits when she was working. … The Defendant … had her own credit facility at [the casinos] and if I reached my limit I would sometimes use her account. I also used her credit facilities at other clubs where I did not have a facility. …"

The claimant was asked to comment on paragraph 8 of the Amended Defence, which states that the defendant opened and subsequently extended credit facilities with five London casinos, namely "Les Ambassadeurs", "Aspinalls", "Crockfords", "The Clermont" and "Rendezvous". She said she had not asked the defendant to open credit facilities in these casinos. The defendant offered her the use of the facilities, but she had only used the facilities in two of the casinos ("Les Ambassadeurs" and "The Claremont"). She was asked whether she had ever borrowed money from the defendant for gambling purposes. She said that when she gambled she was always with a group of family members, friends and employees, and, as a group, they would borrow money from each other for their gambling. The claimant said that if she borrowed money from anyone Ms Minudin would write the date and amount in a ledger and the claimant would repay them fully either that evening or later in the trip. The claimant was asked to comment on paragraph 9 of the Amended Defence, which states:

"In addition, from about 2006 the Claimant would frequently borrow money (in the form of gambling chips or cash) from the Defendant to enable her to gamble at casinos."

The claimant confirmed that she did borrow money and use credit facilities belonging to the defendant. The claimant was asked to consider paragraphs 11 and 12 of the defendant's Amended Defence, which set out in detail the amounts paid to the defendant by the claimant, the date and bank account into which they were paid: between 4 June and 23 June 2008 two transfers, totalling £196,250 to the defendant's account with the London branch of the Bank of China ("the Bank of China Account"), to pay off her casino debts in the defendant's name; and between 8 September 2008 and 29 January 2009, four transfers, totalling £1,246,600, to the defendant's account, with the Singapore branch of HSBC for her to use to pay off the claimant's casino debts in the defendant's name. The claimant confirmed that those transfers had been made. When asked about transfers she was alleged to have made to the defendant's bank account between July 2008 and March 2009, she said did not dispute that she had done so. She was asked about paragraph 15 of the Amended Defence, which states that Mr Ja'afar had transferred money directly to the five casinos to settle gambling debts incurred under the defendant's credit facility with those casinos. She said this was incorrect. So far as she was aware, all payments were made directly to the defendant's accounts and not to the casinos.

34. The claimant said she had last worn the Diamond Bracelet on 23 May 2008 at a dinner at "Les Ambassadeurs". In her second witness statement, she said she had given it to the defendant for safe keeping, as the catch on it had broken. She had wanted to wear it again "two or three weeks later", but could not find it. She had asked Ms Minudin to check with the defendant where the bracelet was, but the defendant denied any knowledge of it. A search was carried out, but no trace of the bracelet was found. She had carried on looking for the bracelet for the next year and a half, until she saw Mr Solomon's affidavit in February 2010.
35. The claimant was asked to comment on paragraph 18 of the Amended Defence, which describes a conversation during a car journey in May or June 2008, during which, it is said, the claimant gave the defendant two diamond bracelets, telling the defendant to sell them and use the proceeds of the sale to repay the claimant's gambling debts and to take £100,000 for arranging the sale. The claimant said she had never asked the defendant to sell any of her diamonds, and had never had a conversation with her "even approximately along these lines". The claimant was also asked to consider the allegation made in paragraph 21 of the Amended Defence, which states:

"On 4 July 2008 Mr Solomon arranged for the sale of the Bracelets to Patrick Aldridge ("Mr Aldridge") and Glick Diamonds for US$5.545 million. That evening, in the course of a conversation at one of the Five Casinos, the Claimant asked the Defendant (in Malay) how much had been obtained for the Bracelets. The Defendant told her US$5.545 million, and the Claimant gave her a thumbs-up sign."

The claimant said she had never asked the defendant about the sale of the bracelets, and (in her second witness statement, at paragraph 62(f)) that the contention about the "thumbs-up sign" was "a fabrication". She said the first time she had become aware that the bracelet had been sold was when she read Mr Solomon's affidavit. In her second witness statement the claimant said this:

"48. The events surrounding the disappearance of the Diamond Bracelet had been nagging at me for over a year and a half. In the hours following the discovery of the Defendant's theft of the Diamonds, I was reminded of the Diamond Bracelet, which disappeared without trace or explanation in May 2008 and which I reference above. I had bought the Diamond Bracelet from Graff in Bond Street, London and it was worth upwards of $5m. It was a beautiful piece set with eight diamonds. Three of the diamonds were pear shaped and weighed approximately 10.03 carats, 8.65 carats and 3.78 carats respectively. Five of the diamonds were marquise diamonds and weighed approximately 16.60 carats, 10.99 carats, 9.41 carats, 9.11 carats and 5.79 carats respectively. It was a beautiful and very valuable piece of jewellery.

49. The last time I saw the Diamond Bracelet was on or around 23 May 2008. I had worn it to an event at the Les Ambassadeurs, where I had been for dinner to celebrate the conclusion of my Masters degree. During the course of the evening the Diamond Bracelet kept catching on my dress, so I took it off and gave it to the Defendant to put in her bag for safe keeping.

50. Two or three weeks later, I do not recall the exact date, I wanted to wear the Diamond Bracelet again but I could not find it amongst my jewellery. I searched my memory to try to recall who of my staff I had given it to. Eventually it came to me that I had handed it that night to the Defendant for safe keeping. I asked Masnunah to call the Defendant to ask her what she had done with it. Masnunah said that when she spoke to the Defendant she denied any knowledge of it. In the confusion that followed, I began to doubt my recollection.

51. In an attempt to resolve the matter, I asked all of my staff to conduct a search at my London residence in an attempt to locate the Diamond Bracelet. My maid, Lucy, was particularly upset because she felt she may be blamed for the loss. A search was also conducted at Les Ambassadeurs but the Diamond Bracelet was never found. I did not make a police report because I could not be sure the Diamond Bracelet was not simply lost and I was worried that I would look silly. Subsequently I found out that the Defendant had told Lucy she could get a copy of the Diamond Bracelet (as a replacement).

52. It was only after the theft of the Diamonds was uncovered that it occurred to me that it was highly probable that the Diamond Bracelet had also been taken by the Defendant. This was why Idris raised it with the Defendant when he met her in Brunei. As is clear from the recording of that conversation the Defendant denies any knowledge of it. Mr Solomon's account of events in his second Affidavit sworn on 1 February 2010 confirmed that the Diamond Bracelet was also stolen from me by the Defendant in May 2008 and that she sold it without my knowledge or consent shortly afterwards. I am hugely saddened by this, particularly as Defendant continued to work closely with me for some time after having betrayed me in this way. This breach of trust has left me wondering what else has been stolen and/or stolen and replicated.

53. I note from Mr Solomon's evidence that the Defendant is alleged to have told him – as with The Diamonds – that the Diamond Bracelet was gifted by me to her mother as a retirement present. I can only reiterate what I have said above about this: the Defendant's mother has never worked for me and I did not make gifts of this type to her. Any suggestion by the Defendant to the contrary when she spoke to Mr Solomon was a lie told for financial gain.

54. … I note that Mr Solomon produces … a letter from the Defendant where she states that the Diamond Bracelet is her family property and that she is authorised to sell it. This is not true."

The claimant rejected the assertions in paragraph 22 of the Amended Defence that she told the defendant to use the proceeds of the sale of the Diamond Bracelet to pay off her – the claimant's – gambling debts, and that, with her agreement, the defendant used £250,000 of the proceeds to repay those debts. She said she had never entered into such an agreement with the defendant. She also denied the allegation in paragraph 23 of the Amended Defence, that, in accordance with her instructions, the defendant held on to the remaining £579,000 and used it to offset her – the claimant's – debts at the five casinos.

36. The claimant was asked comment on paragraph 17 of the Amended Defence, which asserts that she had asked Ms Abdullah to sell jewellery on the her behalf. That was not so, she said. Although she did buy and sell diamonds, all these deals were done between herself and Mrs Moussaieff. The claimant said she has a large collection of jewellery, which she has been reducing since her divorce from the Sultan, because it was difficult to keep such a large collection of diamonds safe.
37. In her second witness statement (in paragraphs 17, 18, 20 and 23) the claimant said she had asked Ms Abdullah to take the Blue Diamond to Mrs Moussaieff on 13 December 2009 to get the ring re-sized. After a routine check of the diamond, Mrs Moussaieff found it was not a diamond, but a replica. On 30 December 2009 Ms Abdullah told the claimant she had twice lent the diamonds to the defendant, for her to use in a property deal. The Yellow Diamond – as the claimant had supposed it to be – was sent to be checked, and was also found to be a replica.
38. In paragraph 59 of her second witness statement the claimant said this:

"The Amended Defence sets out in some detail what it calls the 'Provision of gambling facilities on behalf of the Claimant'. What is pleaded in that document is a "watered down" version of the allegations made in the Defendant's 15 March 2010 affidavit:

(a) In the 15 March 2010 affidavit the Defendant sets out at paragraph 76 that Mr Browning persuaded me (in 2007) to implement credit limits at certain casinos that I did not want to change for fear of upsetting Mr Browning. At paragraph 77 the Defendant claims that because I wanted to gamble in excess of those credit limits I 'instructed' her to obtain credit facilities from the five casinos in London in my name and that '… given our respective positions I had no option but to agree'. This is not true, I did not instruct the Defendant to obtain credit facilities as claimed or at all. It is important to note that, in the Amended Defence, the claim that I asked for the credit facilities to be opened by the Defendant in response to my implementing credit limits is nowhere to be found. This is undoubtedly because the Defendant or her advisors realised that the Defendant had obtained credit facilities at Rendezvous and Les Ambassadeurs before I implemented any 'credit limits'.

(b) It is true that following discussions with Peter Browning I imposed limits on my credit facilities at Les Ambassadeurs. I initially thought that I had also implemented a limit at the Clermont at this time but I now believe that limit was already in existence. It is also true that I increased the limit at the Clermont and that I did not want Peter Browning or Idris to know. The Clermont facility had a £300,000 limit which rose to £2,500,000. At the end of the day it is my decision what I gamble and when, and contrary to what the Defendant suggests I am in a financial position where I can afford to do this. While the limits were a good idea to help me keep track of the sums that I was gambling and to act as a 'check' they were never designed to prevent me gambling once the limits have been reached, as the Defendant seems to be suggesting. The reason I asked that Peter Browning and Idris were not told about the changes to my limits was that I did not want them to think I was being disrespectful to them – they would have known that the limits in themselves would not stop me gambling and were not put in place for that purpose.

(c) The suggestion by the Defendant appears to be that in order for me to continue gambling when I reached my credit limit I needed to use someone else's facility and so I forced the Defendant and Masnunah to open facilities that I could use. In fact, had I wanted to carry on gambling I could have bought chips by paying cash or by using a credit card or cheque, or I could have sought to have my limit further raised at the Clermont. It is not true that I asked Masnunah Minudin to do so. The reason that I ended up using the Defendant's facilities instead of one of the other methods is because the Defendant was always keen for me to do so and it was convenient.

(d) To put the suggestion that I used the Defendant's credit facilities out of need into context I would point out that the credit card I had at the time had no limit on it and I could access significant sums in cash at any stage. While I do not want to 'brag' about my wealth I am in a position where most people would consider me to be immensely wealthy.

(e) I enjoy gambling, it is central to my social life and I find it a great escape. I appreciate that the sums that I gamble seem obscene to many people but I am in a position where I can afford to gamble the sums that I do. On my trips to London I am usually accompanied by friends, family and members of my staff. We will attend the casinos as a group. When I play I usually initially get chips to a value of £50,000. The people who are with me and my staff that are playing will also use these chips. If they win what they do with those winnings is up to them. I usually bet about £10,000 a spin. The Defendant always gave the impression that she was very successful when gambling so when I noticed her gambling large sums I was not too shocked as I presumed she had built up some winnings.

(f) As I say above the use of the Defendant's facilities was not necessary for me to continue gambling after my limits were reached. The point is that when these facilities were used a record of sums that I used were kept and the Defendant was repaid those sums promptly. Usually Masnunah would note down the sums that I owed the Defendant under her facility after agreeing these with the Defendant. If Masnunah was not about the record would be kept by Eny Eriangga, another of my bodyguards and again the sums recorded would be agreed with the Defendant. The sums agreed to be owing would then be repaid either at the time or later through a bank transfer made by Idris.

(g) I attach a list (MA2 (13)) of all the payments that I made to the Defendant and all the payments she says she paid out in her pleaded case in chronological order. As can be seen from this:

(i) I paid to the Defendant by bank transfer the total sum of £2,933,291.00.

(ii) The Defendant paid out (according to her Amended Defence) the total sum of £1,470,502.70 to the casinos to cover my use of her facility (other than money from the sale of the Diamonds or the Diamond Bracelet).

(iii) There is no explanation as to what she did with the missing £1,462,788.30.

(iv) The Defendant claims to have received approximately £6,962,290.00 from the sale of the stolen Diamonds and Diamond Bracelet.

(v) The Defendant claims to have paid out to the Casinos £3,215,998.40 from the proceeds of the sale of the stolen Diamonds and Diamond Bracelet.

(vi) The shortfall between what the Defendant received from the sale of the stolen Diamonds (and Diamond Bracelet) and what she paid to the casinos is £3,746,291.60.

(vii) The Defendant explains the shortfall by claiming that £250,000 from the sale of the Diamond Bracelet was owed to her; that £579,000 from the sale of the Diamond Bracelet was subsequently used to pay casino debts (thought the Defendant does not identify these payments); that $100,000.00 from the sale of the bracelets was a payment to the Defendant; that US$1,700,00[0].00 from the sale of the Diamonds was taken out of the UOB cash and put in a safety deposit box in Singapore (on the Defendant's case because Mr Solomon wanted this sum to be paid to him in cash, though the Defendant does not explain how she intended to get this vast amount of cash to Mr Solomon in the UK); that US$2,000,000 from the sale of the Diamonds was to be held to be paid to me (but in the end only US$1,994,469.00 was held); and that $300,000 from the sale of the Diamonds was the Defendant's to keep.

(h) It must appear quite obvious that what the Defendant claims is nonsense. Not taking account of monies from the sale of the Diamond Bracelet that the Defendant claims were utilised to settle my debts at the casinos but has not identified, on the Defendant's case I paid over £5,000,000.00 (plus Mr Solomon's commission on the sales) more to clear my casino debts than I needed to (less US$1,994,469.00 held in the Singapore account). Even if we deduct those sums I paid approximately £3,200,000.00 more than I needed to.

(i) Further, when I allegedly ask the Claimant [sic] to sell the Diamond Bracelet I have paid her £1,330,250.00 and she has paid out only £120,043.00. This means that she was holding £1,210,207.00 when she sold my Diamond Bracelet allegedly to pay debts I owed to the casinos.

(j) After the sale of the Diamond Bracelet the Defendant pays out £920,000.00 to the casinos between 29 July 2009 and 1 August 2010. At this stage she is holding £1,210,207.00 and £1,580,000.00 (from the sale of the Diamonds) yet I pay her another £93,200.00 in September.

(k) The Defendant makes payments totalling £550,000.00 to casinos between the 19^th December and 5^th January which would mean she is holding £2,333,407.00 when I pay her another £200,000.00 on 7^th January (which is cancelled out by a payment of the same amount on the 9^th January).

(l) Despite the Defendant holding £2,333,407.00 I pay her £1,000,000.00 on 29^th January 2009. This means she holds £3,333,407.00 when she makes the payments of approximately £850,000.00 on the 20^th and 24^th of February. This means she is holding £3,483,407.00 when I make a payment of £166,000.00 on the 27^th February.

(m) The Defendant is holding £2,649,407.00 when she pays out approximately £300,000.00 on the 27 February and 3 March. On the 10 March I pay an additional £189,000.00 on the 10 March meaning that the Defendant is holding £2,538,407.00 when she pays £200,000 on the 17 March.

(n) Thus at the point that the Defendant claims I had debts that I could not pay to the Casinos (amounting to £1,545,500) she was holding £2,338,407.00. When I was allegedly so desperate for money that I got her to sell the two Diamonds she was holding £792,907.00 more than was needed to pay those debts. Even if we deduct the £250,000.00 that I am said to owe the Defendant from the sale of the Diamond Bracelet, and the £579,000.00 that was apparently used to pay my debts which have not been identified I would only needed to have raised about £20,000 to pay off my casino debts in full. Yet the Defendant would have the court believe that I got her to sell the Diamonds and have then lied about this.

(o) Of course the above is all nonsense. The monies I paid to the Defendant were the monies needed to repay the monies borrowed under the credit facilities and the Diamonds and the Diamond Bracelet were stolen and their proceeds used by the Defendant for her own purposes (including paying off her own debts at the casinos)."

39. The claimant refuted the allegation, made in paragraph 26 of the Amended Defence, that in June or July 2009 she had told the defendant she could not pay her gambling debts, had asked the defendant to arrange for replicas to be made of the two diamonds and had said the defendant would be rewarded for helping her in this way. The claimant said she had never discussed making copies of the diamonds with the defendant and that the defendant had never told her that the five casinos were pressing for the debts in her – the defendant's – name to be repaid.
40. The claimant was asked about the allegation in paragraph 30 of the Amended Defence, about a conversation she was said to have had with the defendant in Macau in November 2009, in which they had discussed finding a buyer for the diamonds. The claimant said she had never had such a conversation with the defendant.
41. The claimant was invited to comment on paragraph 37 of the Amended Defence, which describes a telephone conversation on 4 December 2009 in the course of which the defendant told the claimant that the diamonds had been sold for US$7 million to Mr Aldridge in Geneva, and alleges that the claimant then told the defendant to pay US$1.7 million to Mr Solomon; to pay her – the claimant's – gambling debts; to retain US$2 million for her – the claimant; and to keep the balance for herself. The claimant denied that any of this was true.
42. In her second witness statement, the claimant said she had telephoned Mr Ja'afar on 31 December 2009 and told him to confront the defendant. The claimant denied the defendant's allegation that she told the defendant to sell the diamonds and instructed Mr Ja'afar to make a scape-goat of the defendant.

The evidence of Idris Ja'afar

43. Mr Ja'afar gave oral evidence, amplifying his witness statement of 13 October 2011, in particular as to the confessions made by the defendant about her alleged theft of the diamonds.
44. Mr Ja'afar said that when the claimant gambled she liked to do so in company with members of her staff. If she ran out of gambling chips she would borrow chips from anyone around the table. Ms Minudin would then write down the amount borrowed and either repay the debt that evening or later in the trip. She would gamble "most evenings on trips to London". Mr Ja'afar was asked about the assertion in paragraph 7 of the Amended Defence, about the claimant asking the defendant to take out credit facilities in the defendant's name. Mr Ja'afar said he knew that the defendant had credit facilities, but did not know if the claimant had asked the defendant to do that. In his witness statement he said the claimant used chips and cash provided by the defendant. Ms Minudin would keep a record of all monies borrowed. The sums were repaid. Mr Ja'afar said the defendant gambled "a lot". In the casino she was supposed to gamble with the claimant, but he had seen the defendant "a few times" gambling on her own.
45. Mr Ja'afar was asked about the money transfers referred to in paragraph 11 of the Amended Defence. He confirmed that it was he who made the transfers on the claimant's behalf. He also confirmed that the two payments referred to had been made to the defendant. The arrangement with the defendant was that the claimant would transfer the money to the defendant's bank account and then the defendant would repay the debt to the casino.
46. Mr Ja'afar was asked whether payments had ever been made to the casinos directly. He said there had been two occasions when casino staff had telephoned him to say that debts had not been paid. Mr Ja'afar told them he had paid the defendant and she should have paid the casino herself. Mr Ja'afar said that when he had questioned the defendant she had told him the casinos were wrong. After this, all of the claimant's debts were paid directly to the casinos.
47. Mr Ja'afar described what had happened on 1 January 2010. When the defendant arrived at his parents' house, his mother, father and he were all there. He had asked the defendant whether she had gone to London, which she denied. She said she had not been being in London at the beginning of December 2009 (paras. 21 and 22 of Mr Ja'afar's witness statement). He then asked her whether she had met Ms Abdullah, which she also denied. The defendant had told the claimant that she was visiting a sick relative in Singapore. After Ms Abdullah and Ms Minudin arrived, the defendant initially maintained the same story but then admitted that she had, in fact, been in London but only for one day to close her Bank of China account (para. 22 of Mr Ja'afar's witness statement). Finally, the defendant admitted that she had been in London. Ms Abdullah asked the defendant what she had done with the rings. Eventually the defendant said she had used the rings as collateral for a property deal (para. 23 of Mr Ja'far's statement). The defendant was asked whether she gave the rings to the property people, who she said were "a Jewish and a Lebanese guy", but she said they "never touched them". The defendant was then taken into custody by the Brunei police. Mr Ja'afar said he had no conversation with the police officers before they took the defendant away. He denied telling the defendant that she would be put in jail if she did not do what he wanted, or that he asked her to be a "scape-goat" for the claimant, or to make it "look real" when she did take the blame for selling the diamonds – all of which had been alleged in paragraphs 74 and 75 of the Amended Defence.
48. Mr Ja'afar said that the next time he had contact with the defendant was on 3 January 2010 at 10.30 p.m. She had telephoned him saying she needed to see him. Mr Ja'afar then telephoned the claimant to ask her what he should do. The claimant told him to hear what the defendant had to say, so he agreed to meet the defendant. Before meeting the defendant, he bought an audio recorder so that he could record their conversation. In paragraph 29 of his witness statement Mr Ja'afar explained that he had done this because he was "worried that [the defendant] may make false claims about me". He met the defendant on at 1.30 a.m on 4 January 2010. The defendant told him she had stolen the diamonds, made copies and sold the diamonds in Switzerland. Mr Ja'afar said that the defendant had asked him to seek a pardon from the claimant on her behalf. The conversation took place inside Mr Ja'afar's car, in a car park. It lasted about an hour. The transcript of the tape recording, which Mr Ja'afar confirmed was accurate, was provided to the court. The tape was played at the hearing. At the beginning of the tape-recording one can hear the noise of the car doors being locked. The following exchanges took place:

"IDJ [Mr Ja'afar]: … About Boss's bracelet

…

IDJ: But are you aware of anything? Honestly

FKL [The Defendant]: Honestly I don't know anything about it

…

FKL: The one that boss was very upset and Lucy got accused. I don't know anything.

…

IDJ: You know she took care of all the staff

FKL: It's not all about that, hurting taking that money. I just wanted to be off the debts and I just wanted to get back the rings but if I thought that what she has done to me I would not be here. I am here now because I still remember what she have done to me. She has done for me and how she changed my life. That's why I am still here facing all of you. If I had not thought about all this, you will not see me here today. Not even in Singapore. But because I remember what she has done I decided to just face it because I know I am wrong and I don't want to run away. I am not an ungrateful person and because of all the debt thing it's just making me really stressed. I could b[u]y more time, a little, I could buy more time and just get back the rings and leave this place but before I could get back the rings you all found out.

…

FKL: But the stones are safe and is with them. I told them to sell it to me just now. They say that

IDJ: The same people that you sold it to

FKL: Yes. They told me that it is a hard thing to do to sell back the thing at that same price. I told them that, fair enough, you can just increase the price a bit but just let me have those two rings.

IDJ: But if they are going to increase it, have you got the funds to pay that? (pause) Your middle man is out already, he doesn't want to be involved anyway. You've mentioned this to him?

FKL: I mentioned this to him. He didn't want to like to get totally involved but I told him to please help me talk to those people that I really need to get that ring. He told me that he would speak to them and he'll get back to me.

IDJ: They knew it was stolen property

FKL: They didn't know

IDJ: They didn't know? All of them didn't know anything? And you paid the middle man 1.7 million?

FKL: He asked for 23 to 24 percent. I think the middle man knew something fishy was going on. That's why he asked for the money

IDJ: Oh, when you asked to replicate it?

…

FKL … I don't even want to get Afifa involved. That's why [I'd] told you don't involve her cos she's not done anything wrong, she just helped me, she didn't know what I was planning to do. The only mistake that she did was to ask me again in November.

…

IDJ: One point five million. So that's 2 million pound, the other guy got about a million, I don't know, 1.7 million US, about 1 million pound, so left with you that it is about 1 million pound. 1 million pound, got it for 3.5, I'm sure they are going to ask you for about 5, I don't know how much roughly. So you need about another 4 million to get the ring back (pause)[.] How is that possible?

[Silence]

IDJ: How are you going to get the ring back?

[Silence]

IDJ: Four million pounds in the next ten days

[Silence]

…

IDJ: So how you going to get the ring back?

FKL: Try to borrow from some people if possible

[Silence]

IDJ: Borrow from some people? (pause) But I'm sure they need some sort of, you know, you give me something and I might give you 4 million you know. Have you still got property in London? (pause) No more?

[Silence]

IDJ: You've sold that off as well? To pay for your debts? (sigh)

[Silence]

FKL: Bang, please help me Bang

IDJ: Help you to get a pardon? From Boss? (sigh) Get you a pardon the on contrary that you will get the ring back? If you don't get the ring back (pause) you will face the music (pause) You will?

[Silence]

IDJ: In some ways I am glad that you confess already, whatever you've told me you've already told the police. (sigh)

[Silence]

IDJ: (sigh) I will talk to the Boss, it all depends on Boss.

…

FKL: Please tell them I'm really really sorry

IDJ: But then, how do I say this … I'm … confused

FKL: How am I supposed to get the 4 million?

IDJ: Yeah. I'm thinking how are you going to get the ring back when you have already paid your gambling debts?

[Silence]

IDJ: When you've given the middle man 1.7. How did you even you know, meet these people, the middle man?

[Silence]

…

FKL: Just try to help me out Bang. I've really [got] nobody else to ask for help, seriously. Besides the police, only you know the story right now

IDJ: Have they given the report to the top people?

FKL: I've given the statement this afternoon

IDJ: When did you confess?

FKL: This morning

IDJ: You confessed everything?

FKL: Cos I felt that my guilt was eating me alive. (pause) I just feel really very guilty and I really regretful. (pause) But I really hope you can help me

[Silence]

IDJ: All they want is the ring

FKL: I know

IDJ: But I'm like thinking at the moment how, that's in my mind, how?

FKL: I try to borrow from some people to see whether they can just get the whole sum out

IDJ: I will convey your message to the Boss and the princess

FKL: Please help me put in a good word, Bang. (pause) Seriously, if I really had the intention of just going I just, I not here already. OK Bang?

…".

Mr Ja'afar was asked about paragraphs 94 to 96 of the Amended Defence, in the section headed "The "confessions" to Idris", which give an account of the conversation in the car. There it is alleged that Mr Ja'afar locked the doors of the car and that the defendant was frightened; that Mr Ja'afar told her he would make a recording of their conversation to show that the claimant was not involved in the sale of the diamonds; that Mr Ja'afar "rehearsed" the conversation with her and told her to "make [it] sound as realistic as possible"; that Mr Ja'afar threatened her, saying that she would be "thrown into jail" if she did not co-operate; and that after the recording was concluded, Mr Ja'afar said he would send the tape to the claimant's lawyers. Mr Ja'afar confirmed that he did lock the doors, as he and the defendant were meeting in the early hours of the morning in a car park. He said the defendant was not frightened and she did not know that he had an audio-recorder. He denied telling the defendant to make the conversation sound "as realistic as possible". Nor did he make any threats to the defendant or try to influence what she said. Mr Ja'afar also rejected the defendant's allegation that Mr Bateman had asked him to record his conversation with the defendant, as did Mr Bateman. He says that it was the defendant who wanted to see him so that she could ask him and the claimant help her. The defendant had sent him a text message on 5 January 2010 requesting him to ask the claimant for a pardon, and another text message on 10 January 2010 asking him for his help in speaking to the claimant (para. 37 of Mr Ja'afar's witness statement). In a text dated 10 January 2010 the defendant said:

"… I truly regret what I have done bang. I really do … but please tell tuanku ["Tuanku" is Malay for Her Highness (i.e. the Claimant)] to give me a chance to repent … I can't go behind bars again bang … I am the bread winner of 2 families. Until now my parents doesn't know. I can't bear to tell them. Please help me bang."

The evidence of Mark Bateman

49. Mr Mark Bateman is a solicitor acting for the claimant in these proceedings, together with his colleague, Mr Dowd. He gave oral evidence. His written evidence was given in his witness statement dated 14 October 2011.
50. Mr Bateman was asked about the tape-recorded conversation between Mr Ja'afar and the defendant on 4 January 2010. Mr Bateman said he did not ask Mr Ja'afar to record the conversation, nor had he asked Mr Ja'afar to gain a false confession from the defendant. He had never asked Mr Ja'afar to influence what the defendant would say in that conversation. In his witness statement, Mr Bateman addressed the defendant's contention that Idris had told her that he – Mr Bateman – had asked him to record the conversation to "make things water-tight for boss" [the claimant]. Mr Bateman said there was no truth in that contention. He knew nothing about the recording until after it had been made.

The evidence of Masnunah Minudin

51. Ms Minudin gave oral evidence, which amplified her witness statement: in particular, as to the circumstances in which it was discovered that the Diamond Bracelet had been lost and as to the confessions the defendant had made.
52. Ms Minudin said that in 2008 the claimant had told her that she had lost the Diamond Bracelet. The claimant said she asked Ms Minudin to speak to the defendant about it, as she was sure that she had given it to the defendant.
53. Ms Minudin said that she asked the defendant about the Diamond Bracelet, but the defendant denied any knowledge of it. Ms Minudin said she told the claimant about this conversation and that, as she had not been working on the night in question, the claimant must have given it to the defendant. In her witness statement, dated 10 October 2011, (in para. 6) Ms Minudin described the search for the bracelet. She said that the defendant did not join in the search. In her oral evidence Ms Minudin said that in January 2010 she asked her sister to speak to a Shamen – a person believed to be endowed with psychic powers – and the Shamen had said that the person who had taken the Diamond Bracelet was fair skinned, short haired and Chinese looking. This matched a description of the defendant. But when Ms Minudin told the defendant what the Shamen had said, the defendant had "just stared … blankly" at her and did not react. Ms Minudin says that after the disappearance of the Diamond Bracelet the defendant had resigned from her employment with the claimant, citing ill health, but later returned. She said that at the time nobody had any reason to suspect the defendant, as she was "a trusted member of the household".
54. Ms Minudin said she was almost always present when the claimant went to gamble at casinos; this was one of her duties. She was asked to explain about how accounts were kept of the debts owed by the claimant. She said that every time the claimant borrowed money from anyone in her party, she – Ms Minudin – would record the details in a book. At the end of a night, she would confirm with each person the amount owed to them by the claimant and then tell the claimant how much she owed and to whom. Ms Minudin confirmed that notes that had been produced to the court were in her handwriting. In her witness statement (at para. 18) Ms Minudin described the claimant's generosity to her friends and staff. She said the defendant would gamble in another part of the casino and return when she needed more chips. She thought the defendant was a successful gambler, as she was able to "gamble the sums that she did". Although the defendant had claimed that she only gambled because the claimant told her to, she was, in fact, a keen gambler and would gamble "very large sums"; she liked to play blackjack.
55. Ms Minudin said that in December 2009 the claimant had told her that what she had supposed to be the Blue Diamond had been found to be a fake. On 30 December 2009, the claimant telephoned her and told her that Ms Abdullah had confessed to lending the two diamonds to the defendant. At about this time the defendant resigned once more, again saying she was ill. Ms Minudin knew that in August 2009 the defendant had asked the claimant's maid, Lucy, to lend her the rings. Ms Minudin said she had not been aware that the defendant had been in London. She had thought she was in Singapore looking after her aunt.
56. Ms Minudin said she travelled back to Brunei with Ms Abdullah on 31 December 2009, and on 1 January 2010 went straight to Mr Ja'afar's parents' house to see the defendant. At first the defendant denied knowing anything about the two rings, but eventually said she had used the them for a property deal, and had shown the stones to the people involved in that deal. She said she had only used the rings to prove she was rich. Ms Minudin did not hear anyone trying to influence the defendant. In fact, they spoke "very softly" to her to get her to tell the truth. She had not heard Mr Ja'afar, or anyone else, threaten the defendant or tell her to take the blame for the theft.
57. Ms Minudin was asked about the allegations made in paragraphs 73 to 76 of the Amended Defence. She said those allegations were totally untrue. Ms Minudin said she had spoken to the defendant while she was in custody, but had not told her, "Just do whatever they want and I will speak to [the claimant] for you", as was alleged in paragraph 88 of the Amended Defence. She had told the defendant that she – the defendant – would have to tell the truth and that if she did, Ms Minudin would speak to the claimant on her behalf.
58. Finally, Ms Minudin was asked by Mr Mallin to look at a letter on the claimant's headed writing paper, signed by "Maslina Mindin", which had been provided to her by the police. She said that neither the name nor the signature were hers. She would never have signed a letter saying she was the claimant's "secretary". She did not write the letter. The contents of the letter are entirely false; the defendant's mother was never employed by Mariam Aziz. She said the letter "would seem to be a forgery."

The evidence of Mohamad Shu'if Mohamad Hussain

59. Mr Hussain gave oral evidence, amplifying the evidence in his witness statement. He is the claimant's nephew. He has been her financial adviser since 2003, and knows her financial position very well. He was asked whether the claimant would need to sell her jewellery to meet a debt of £1.5 million. He said the claimant was "quite wealthy" and had enough money to meet such a debt out of her current resources, without having to sell any of her assets. He added that the claimant has free access to her assets. She has a large collection of jewellery, and also buys and sells diamonds. But she had never sold her jewellery to settle her debts. Mr Hussain said the claimant had been gambling for "a long time", but only in her leisure and "not much more than the average person would like to gamble".
60. In paragraph 5 of his witness statement, Mr Hussain said:

"As a result of her marriage to His Majesty, the Sultan of Brunei, the Claimant is a very wealthy woman with substantial assets. For the Defendant to allege that the Claimant would have had to sell the Diamonds to meet the Debt because she did not have sufficient funds to discharge it, is bordering on the absurd."

The evidence of Hamydon Ibrahim

61. Mr Hamydon Ibrahim gave evidence, by video-link. He is the Assistant Superintendent of Police in the Royal Brunei Police Force. He and another police officer, Mariyani Abdul Wahab, interviewed the defendant in Brunei on 2, 3 and 6 January 2010. In those interviews the defendant made full and detailed confessions of her having taken and used the diamonds without the claimant's knowledge or consent, which are relied on by the claimant in these proceedings. Mr Ibrahim gave evidence about those confessions, and produced them as exhibits to his witness statement of 29 September 2011.
62. Mr Ibrahim said that he first met the defendant when she was taken to his office on 2 January 2010. He said that the defendant stayed at his office from 2 a.m. on 2 January 2010 until about 5 p.m. on 3 January 2010, was interviewed and made three statements. The defendant made a fourth statement on 6 January 2010. Once she had made the statements she was asked to read and sign them. Mr Ibrahim confirmed that the statements "represent a true and accurate record of what the defendant said to me". The defendant was released on police bail on 3 January 2010 and was told to report daily to Mr Ibrahim's office. In the statement she made on 6 January 2010 the defendant gave the surnames and telephone numbers of the jewellers.
63. The defendant made her first statement to the Brunei police on 2 January 2010, beginning at 4.35 a.m. (para. 5 of Mr Ibrahim's witness statement). In summary, the defendant said she persuaded Mr Abdullah to hand her the diamonds to "show the [two] investors and give them assurance that I have the money to pay them". She went on to give an account of her dealings with a company called "Dion Limited", and two men by the names of Sheik and Libon, about a piece of land in London. In effect, this was a somewhat enhanced version of the story the defendant had originally told Ms Abdullah. Even in this account the defendant admitted that, when it was discovered that the replica diamonds were fakes, she asked Ms Abdullah not to tell the claimant about what she had been doing because she knew "taking it out was wrong". The defendant initialled every answer to show that she agreed that it had been accurately recorded. She did this in all of the statements she made. Later on the same day the defendant underwent a polygraph test, which she appeared to fail (para. 7 of Mr Ibrahim's witness statement). The defendant's second interview began at 11.15 p.m. on 2 January 2010 (para. 8 of Mr Ibrahim's witness statement). The statement she now made repeated and elaborated on the assertion that she had needed the diamonds to show to Messrs. Sheik and Libon. No mention was made in either interview of the role of Mr Solomon. The defendant said that Messrs Sheik and Libon took the diamonds to copy. On 3 January 2010, at about 4 p.m., the defendant provided a further statement (see para. 9 of Mr Ibrahim's witness statement). She now said she wanted to "change the entire statement that [she had] given earlier and because [she wanted] to tell the truth". She made this clear admission:

"I need to pay 5 casinos in the UK as I owe them a total of £1.5 million and I came up with the idea of getting the 2 diamond rings and selling it off to pay for my debt but my intention is to get the 2 rings back after I have paid my debts".

The defendant then gave an account substantially the same as the evidence Ms Abdullah gave at trial. She said she had paid US$1.7 million to Mr Solomon – which seems to be untrue. In her final two answers she apologized repeatedly and specifically apologized to "my boss [the claimant] for betraying her trust in me". The defendant left the police station after the third interview but returned on 6 January 2010 and made a fourth statement, in which she expressed the "greatest regret" and sought forgiveness (paras. 10 and 11 of Mr Ibrahim's witness statement).

64. Mr Ibrahim was asked to comment on the allegation in paragraph 78 of the Amended Defence, which referred to him "interrogating" the defendant. Mr Ibrahim said he did not interrogate her. He had been asked to get a written statement from the defendant. He and his colleague obtained information from the defendant by asking her questions. The defendant was asked whether she was willing to make a statement and she replied "Yes" on each occasion. No tape recording had been made of the interviews. This was not normal procedure in Brunei. Ms Wahab typed a record of each interview on her laptop.
65. Mr Ibrahim was asked about the allegations in paragraphs 79, 80, 82 to 87, 89, 90 and 92 of the Amended Defence. Paragraph 79 states that the defendant had asked, but was not given, access to a lawyer, and to be allowed to make a telephone call. Mr Ibrahim said that the defendant had never asked for a lawyer, and that she did make one telephone call. Paragraph 80 of the Amended Defence states that the defendant had said she was not well and was suffering from a migraine. The defendant also said she was finding it difficult to open her eyes, because the lighting in the room was too bright. Mr Ibrahim denied that the defendant had told the police she was feeling unwell. Nor did she have any difficulty opening her eyes; the lighting in the room was normal. Paragraph 82 of the Amended Defence states that the police asked the defendant if she knew that she was dealing with the Sultan and that the diamonds belonged to the princesses. Mr Ibrahim said he had never mentioned the Sultan and did not tell the defendant that the diamonds belonged to the princesses. Paragraph 83 of the Amended Defence states that the defendant told the police that the claimant had asked her to copy the diamonds, but that they said this was "not what they wanted to hear" and refused to write it down. Mr Ibrahim said that the defendant had never mentioned that the claimant asked for the diamonds to be copied. And he denied that the police had refused to write down anything the defendant had said. Paragraph 84 of the Amended Defence states that Mr Ibrahim had received a telephone call from Mr Ja'afar, and that he told the defendant that if she did not co-operate she would be detained. Mr Ibrahim denied both of these allegations. Paragraph 85 of the Amended Defence alleges that Mr Ibrahim's colleague often interrupted the defendant's answers and instructed her "not to tell her what she did not want to hear". Mr Ibrahim said that Ms Wahab recorded all of the question and the answers given. Paragraph 85 also states that the defendant had signed the statements given to her by Ms Wahab only because of the threats Mr Ibrahim had made to her, as she "feared for her liberty and well-being". Mr Ibrahim did not accept this. He said the defendant was asked to read the statement and to sign her answers. She had the option not to sign if she did not agree with what had been written. She also had the option to amend any of the statements. Mr Ibrahim was asked specifically about the polygraph test, referred to in paragraph 86 of the Amended Defence. Mr Ibrahim said the test was not administered by someone called "Linda"; she was not a police officer. He said the test was a common procedure, though it had "little standing in the Brunei courts". The result of the defendant's test was "Deception Indicated". Paragraph 87 of the Amended Defence states that the police officers wrote "No" even though the defendant had answered "Yes" when they asked her if the claimant had known she was in London in December. Mr Ibrahim said that they had recorded whatever the defendant had said. Paragraph 89 of the Amended Defence states that, whilst giving her third statement, the officers refused to write anything that implicated the claimant, and that if she "took the blame and apologised" the police would let her go. Mr Ibrahim denied this. Paragraph 90 of the Amended Defence alleges that the defendant was told to apologize for having made false statements, and that she did so because she was "sick, confused, tired and frightened". Mr Ibrahim denied that the defendant had been told to write an apology and said she did not look sick, confused or frightened. Paragraph 92 of the Amended Defence states that Ms Wahab had prepared a statement the defendant would have to sign if she was not to be detained but allowed to go back to Singapore. Mr Ibrahim said that this was not true. No statement had been prepared. The defendant had never been threatened. And no pressure had been applied to her to make her sign the statements.
66. Mr Ibrahim said (in para. 4 of his witness statement) that the impression the defendant sought to give – that she was questioned for 48 hours without real respite – was false. The police had not fabricated any statements made by the defendant. She was never threatened, nor put under any form of pressure whatsoever. Mr Ibrahim said that throughout all of the interviews only two officers – Ms Wahab and he – had been present.

The evidence of Faridah Binte Mohamed Hussain

67. The witness statement of Ms Faridah Hussain, dated 19 September 2011, was provided to the court as evidence of the defendant's lie about being in Singapore in December 2009. Ms Hussain stated:

"2. … I have known both the Claimant and the Defendant for many years. …

3. In December 2009 I was helping to keep an eye on the Claimant's Singapore house. I had a call from the Defendant to say that she was in Singapore because her Aunt was ill. …

4. Later that night the Claimant called me and asked if I could arrange for some flowers and some cash to be delivered to the Defendant's Aunt on her behalf which I agreed to do.

5. Early the next day … the Defendant called me, … . She was claiming to be in Singapore. … I asked her to confirm the room number at the [hospital] and I told her that the Claimant had called and asked me to arrange some flowers and cash to go to the [hospital] for her Aunt. The Defendant's reaction was very odd and she asked me not to send the flowers and said that this was because her Aunt did not like the Claimant. Although … this seemed odd I had no reason to believe the Defendant was lying to me. I have known her for a long time and have always been kind to her … . I did not think she would abuse my trust.

6. The Defendant suggested that I did not send the flowers and keep the cash for myself. I did not want to do this so the Defendant suggested that I send the flowers to her home address and hold on to the money until we met up, which I did.

7. The Claimant then rang me later the same day to see if I had done what she had asked and whether the Defendant was in Singapore. Because I did not want to cause an issue between the Defendant … I told the Claimant I had taken the flowers and seen the Defendant.

8. I was very disappointed when I learnt that the Defendant had in fact been in London and not in Singapore. She had lied to me and to the Claimant, as I have no doubt that the Claimant thought the Defendant was in Singapore partly because I had inadvertently been dragged into it.

…

10. The Defendant has always stuck me as an avid gambler. I have seen her gambling with the Claimant and on her own (often blackjack). I was always shocked by the amount that the Defendant would be gambling – often sums as much as the Claimant – but she always gave the impression she was successful and won often."

The evidence of Pehin Ja'afar

68. In his witness statement, dated 10 October 2010, Mr Pehin Ja'afar, the claimant's brother, described the conversation between his son, Idris Ja'afar, and the defendant at his house on 1 January 2010:

"12. The Defendant arrived and Idris, my wife and I all sat down with her. Idris asked the Defendant why she had lied about going to Singapore at the start of December 2009 to visit a sick relative and Idris explained that he now knew this to be a lie because Afifa had confirmed to the Claimant that the Defendant had travelled to London. Idris asked the Defendant for an explanation. The Defendant denied that she had lied to anyone or that she had been in London to meet with Afifa.

13. Arrangements had been made for Afifa and Masnunah Minudin … to fly to Brunei. They were aware that the Defendant was at our house so came to join us there. It seemed the Defendant was shocked to realise that Afifa was actually there in Brunei and that she would need to confront her. Although the Defendant initially maintained her story, after Masnunah and Afifa joined the meeting it became obvious that Afifa was going to contradict her, the Defendant admitted that she had in fact been in London earlier in December 2009."

The evidence of Busera Abdullah

69. In her witness statement, dated 10 October 2011, Ms Busera Abdullah, an adopted daughter of the Sultan and the claimant related what was said to her by Afifa Abdullah about the loan of the diamonds to the defendant:

"13. Later in the month, which would have been around Christmas time in 2009, Afifa came to see me and told me she needed to talk. She didn't say what it was about at first. … She … told me that [the Defendant] had asked her to lend her the blue and yellow rings for a property deal and Afifa had done so as a favour and because she trusted [her] completely. She explained that [the Defendant] had wanted the rings to show to the people she was going to do a business deal with to convince them she was serious. Afifa said she had lent [the Defendant] the rings on two separate occasions but both times only for a short period of time (a matter of hours). She said this had happened once earlier in the year (in or around July 2009) and again earlier that month (December 2009).

…

15. After the conversation we had, I advised Afifa to tell [the Claimant] immediately about Fatimah borrowing the diamond. Especially given now that Afifa was also worried about the yellow ring. She therefore went and found [the Claimant] immediately and Afifa told her everything. I understand [Claimant] sent Afifa to Mrs Moussaieff's that same day and it was confirmed that the stone in the yellow ring was not a diamond."

The evidence of Lucy Perait

70. In her witness statement, dated 10 October 2011, Ms Lucy Perait, the claimant's maid, described her conversation with the defendant about the loan of one of the claimant's diamonds:

"6. In June 2009 the Defendant asked me to access the Claimant's jewellery and let her borrow one of the Claimant's rings (a ring containing a very valuable white diamond). … She told me that she wanted to show the diamond/ring to some people to prove that she could afford to buy a property. The conversations took place by text and then by MSN messenger. …

7. I refused to do what the Defendant wanted and she tried to persuade me by saying that I could make money and would not have to work. She offered to share with me 50% of the money that she made on her property dealing or £25,000. She tried to persuade me that she only wanted to 'pinjam' [borrow] the ring and that she would give it back 'dim 3 hari' [within three days]. She said she was desperate. I did not want to do this, the jewellery is not my property and I did not want to abuse the Claimant's trust. I was also scared that if anything happened to the ring I would be in trouble. When I continued to refuse the Defendant and I argued and I closed the MSN conversation. After that I distanced myself from the Defendant although I did mention to Masnunah Minudin that the Defendant had asked to borrow the ring so she could further a property deal a few months later."

The evidence of Jonathan Krause

71. Mr Jonathan Krause is the managing director of Forensic Control Limited, a company which provides computer forensic service. He was instructed by Mr Dowd to examine messages from mobile phones and laptops. He made a witness statement on 11 October 2011. It appears that the defendant has never challenged the findings referred to in that evidence. Paragraph 2.2.3 of Mr Krause's witness statement states:

"I discovered and extracted Facebook chat between Fatimah Lim and Afifa Abdullah from December 2009 from Afifa's computer. …"

Details of the Facebook chat were exhibited to Mr Krause's witness statement. One of the entries is of exchange that includes this:

"Fi, hope u dun tell mama tat I asked u to help me".

The evidence of Amalina Abdullah

72. In a witness statement dated 13 October 2011 Ms Amalina Abdullah, an adopted daughter of the Sultan and the claimant, describes the search for the Diamond Bracelet in June 2008.

"In June 2008 I was in London with [the Claimant] when she discovered that one of her bracelets was missing. This was the Diamond Bracelet … . I helped look for this and the household, including [the Defendant], was aware that it was missing. [The Claimant] loved this bracelet and was upset that it had disappeared. …".

The evidence of Edwin Solomon

73. In his witness statement, dated 11 October 2011, Mr Solomon, the managing director and owner of Sceptre Jewels, a company that produces diamond jewellery and deals in loose precious stones, testified to the dealings he had with the diamonds and Diamond Bracelet at the instigation of the defendant. The claimant does not now suggest that in any of those dealings Mr Solomon acted dishonestly. Mr Solomon said that the defendant told him that it was the defendant's mother who was the claimant's badminton coach and personal assistant, and that the claimant had given the defendant's mother valuable gifts as a retirement present (para. 15 of Mr Solomon's witness statement). Mr Solomon says that he only sold one bracelet and that the defendant kept the other for herself. In paragraphs 22 to 25 of his witness statement Mr Solomon said:

"22. I told the Defendant that I thought that the approximate valuation of the larger bracelet was around $5 million. The Defendant had by that stage intimated that she did not wish to sell the second smaller bracelet at it had a much lower value of around $100,000. The Defendant claims at paragraph 91 of her first affidavit that she did not decide she would only sell the more valuable bracelet. This is untrue. To the best of my recollection it was only the larger bracelet which was eventually sold.

23. After the bracelets had been examined by the London Laboratory, the Defendant took all the loose stones and the setting of the larger bracelet and the other bracelet away with her. I said I would contact her when we had an offer. Eventually we had an offer from Mr Aldridge of approximately $4.5 million and from Mr Glick of $4.75 million.

24. After negotiation with Mr Glick we reached an agreement on an offer of $5.545 million. A day or so after this, Mr Aldridge called Mr Glick saying that he wanted to have a couple of the stones in the bracelet polished to improve their appearance, presumably so that he could command an increased offer. They accordingly decided to make a joint offer and eventually the offer made was $5.545 million. This offer was communicated to me through Mr Aldridge. To the best of my knowledge, all of the above negotiations were conducted verbally.

25. I subsequently contacted the Defendant and informed her of the offer, which she was happy with. Once the Defendant had agreed the price, I contacted Mr Aldridge as Mr Glick had told me that all future dealings should be channelled through Mr Aldridge. Mr Aldridge came to London on 4 July 2008. The Defendant and I met with him and Ms MacFarlane at Ms MacFarlane's office. Ms MacFarlane prepared two letters, one of which was a letter confirming the Defendant's agreement to pay my commission of 8% (Exhibit ES1 Page2). My commission had originally been agreed at 7.5% but the Defendant voluntarily offered an additional 0.5% commission in recognition of the additional work that I had undertaken. I note that at paragraph 90 of her first affidavit that the Defendant claims I asked for this increase but hat is not true. The second was a letter describing the bracelet, providing details of the Defendant's bank account and stating that the sale was agreed subject to receipt of the relevant certificates being received from the Gemmological Institute America (GIA) and receipt of a letter from the Defendant's mother, Liem Lian Neo (the disputed owner) (confirming the sale (Exhibit ES1 Page 3). Both letters were signed by the Defendant and the second also by Mr Aldridge. Mr Aldridge also confirmed receipt of the loose diamonds and diamond bracelet on that same document."

Mr Solomon described the later transaction of the sale of the diamonds in paragraphs 30 to 65 of his witness statement. In paragraph 30 of his witness statement Mr Solomon said that the defendant told him that the diamonds were owned by her mother and had been given to her mother by the claimant. Mr Solomon described the transaction in fine detail, but the salient passages in his account are in paragraphs 30, 33, 42 to 44, 52 to 55, 58, 60, 63 to 65:

"30. In around July 2009 I received a telephone call from the Defendant. She said that she was in London and that she wanted to sell some other items of jewellery. She made an appointment and came to see me bringing two stones with, one was a large blue diamond, the other, a large yellow diamond both set in rings. She again told me that these rings were owned by her mother and were also given to her by the Claimant. I said that, again, Mr Glick might be interested in purchasing these items.

…

33. Matthew [Aldridge] said that he felt I had overvalued the items but he was certainly still interested and he left the first defendant with an offer of $7 million for both items before he left.

…

42. At around that time, Mr Aldridge indicated that he would at the very least like to meet with the Defendant's mother to satisfy himself in relation to the transaction and he sent me an email saying the same on 29 July. He makes a reference to Sue, the name by which I knew the Defendant and that he wanted to be 'satisfied with the transparency of any agreement'. … I believe that I would have forwarded this on to the Defendant, but to the best of my recollection I heard no more from the Defendant for many weeks.

43. I have seen that in her first affidavit the Defendant suggests that there was only one meeting at this time, this is not correct. There had in fact been three different occasions at that time when I had seen the stones. At paragraph 110 of the first affidavit the Defendant claims that at this single meeting she asked about the replicas being made but this is not correct, she raised this at a later meeting. The Defendant also claims that when she said the stones belonged to her mother I shook my head sceptically and said "You know and I know who they came from". This is absolutely not true. This is a complete fabrication on the part of the Defendant.

44. My next contact with the Defendant was some time in early November. In her first affidavit at paragraph 112, the Defendant claims she called me and asked me to find a buyer. This is not true, Mr Aldridge had already been contacted as set out above. I also understand that it forms part of her Amended Defence that she asked me to find a buyer in November but this is not true as set out above she had already done this.

…

52. Eventually, after negotiation, a price of $7.7 million was agreed. That price was based on the assumption that the stones were of a lower grading than ultimately proved to be the case. …

53. At that time an invoice dated 3 December was prepared by Aldridge's secretary confirming the agreed price of $7.7 million and that the stones were sold subject to the relevant GIA certification of their colour.

54. At no time prior to the handing over of the diamonds to Mr Aldridge did I ever see a formal certificate describing their colour and clarity. Indeed it was for this reason that I understood the stones were to be sent to New York for certification. As stated above, they were sold to Mr Aldridge/Mr Glick on the basis that the sale was subject to GIA Certificates Natural colour.

55. With regard to my commission, around a week prior to this meeting (towards the end of November), the Defendant wanted confirmation of my commission, which we had previously agreed would be 8% rather than 7.5%. I sent an email to the Defendant on 21 December 2009 confirming the 8% commission. I requested that the Defendant forward this email to Mr Aldridge so that he knew he should make the appropriate payment to me, which amounted to $616,000 (Exhibit ES1 Page 9).

…

57. In early January, Mr Aldridge had called me to confirm that the certification was satisfactory and that he had sent the money to the Defendant. I believe that the Defendant also sent me a text message confirming that the funds had been received. …

58. I received a call from the Defendant some time after my conversation with Mr Aldridge, again in the early part of January, stating that her father was extremely upset that her mother had sold these two items which were a personal gift from the former Queen. She accordingly wanted me to contact Mr Aldridge and ask him to sell the stones back to her. I therefore called Mr Aldridge to discuss this but he was not interested in selling the stones back to the Defendant. I explained this to the Defendant.

…

60. Upon realising that there was no possibility of getting the original stones back, the Defendant asked me if I could source two identical stones to those which she had sold. I said it would be impossible to get identical stones but I could do my best to look for stones which were similar in appearance.

…

63. The Defendant suggests that she sold me that she did not want the diamonds rings sold but she wanted the rings kept for her as she wanted to repurchase them after she had repaid her casino debts. This is not true.

64. I never received any money from the Defendant other than the commission payments discussed above. The only money I received was the 8% commission which was paid to me directly by Mr Aldridge.

65. I had no knowledge that the Defendant did not have the authority to sell the stones."

The evidence of Simon John Bartholomew

74. Mr Simon Bartholomew is a friend of the claimant and an acquaintance of the defendant. Mr Bartholomew made a witness statement, dated 14 October 2011, in which (in para. 4) he testified to the independent gambling of the defendant and also to the amounts that the defendant was using to gamble.

"4. On or about 22 July 2009, whilst on a trip to London … I dropped in to the Les Ambassadeurs Club … . As we walked onto the gaming floor, we saw the Defendant playing Black Jack at one of the tables. When we walked closer to greet her, I noticed she was playing with £5,000 chips … . I also realised that the Defendant had a large stack of these £5,000 chips, perhaps as many as 20, in front of her. The Defendant … seemed embarrassed that we had seen her in the casino alone – she seemed uncomfortable, as if she had been spotted doing something she should not have been."

Mr Bartholomew said he was surprised to see the defendant alone in the casino playing at the table because the claimant was not in the country at the time and the defendant was playing with "such high-value chips".

The evidence of Alisa Moussaieff

75. Mrs Moussaieff is the owner of Moussaieff Jewellers Limited, an expert in her field, who has bought and sold diamonds on behalf of the claimant. She made a witness statement, dated 14 October 2011, which relates to her dealings with the diamonds. In paragraph 7 of her witness statement she said:

"On or around 14 December 2009, … Afifa Abdullah, visited me at my London Hilton store, so that I could re-size the ring in which the Blue Diamond was supposed to be set. When any precious stone is brought in for re-sizing, we carry out a small number of standard checks and, on inspection by me, the blue stone in the ring appeared not to be a diamond. I immediately asked my assistant, Michael Albury, to check the stone and he confirmed that it was a diamond substitute. I telephoned the Claimant immediately to tell her of the discovery and she was very shocked. She told me that she could not understand how this could have happened as she said the Blue Diamond had never been out of her possession."

The evidence of Gerald Ho Hee Teck

76. Mr Gerald Teck, an acquaintance of both the claimant and the defendant, made a witness statement, dated 15 November 2011, in which he describes their gambling:

"13. If the Claimant ran out of chips when in the casino she would occasionally borrow some chips from her companions, including myself. On such occasions a note would be taken of the amount borrowed and duly repaid on the Claimant's behalf by her staff.

14. In addition to visiting casinos with the Claimant, I once attended the Rendezvous casino in London without the Claimant being present. The Defendant and a friend of her, Noni, took me on this trip. … The Defendant gave Noni and I each £500 to play with. She had a facility at the casino but we did not know how much she withdrew to gamble with herself. Noni and I gambled with our money and subsequently lost it. The Defendant continued to play but was losing. She played with her usual bets using £25 chips and gambling between £1,000 and £5,000 per spin of the roulette wheel."

The evidence of Eny Erlangga Nursubekti

77. Ms Nursubekti has worked for the claimant since 2005 as a badminton coach and personal bodyguard. She knows the defendant as a friend and colleague. She made a witness statement on 18 January 2012. In it she described the claimant's and defendant's gambling:

"5. The Claimant enjoys socializing and playing at casinos when she is in London (and, more recently, Singapore as well). When she goes to the casinos the Claimant is accompanied by her staff, friends and sometimes members of her family.

…

7. Several members of staff used to receive chips in this way, including the Defendant. As with other members of staff, if the Defendant won, she was allowed to keep her winnings. When she won the Defendant would often go off to other parts of the casino to gamble on her own. The Defendant knew how to play and we knew she especially liked Blackjack. The Defendant would often be gambling with very valuable chips and we all assumed that she was successful in her gambling and that this was how she could afford to gamble the sums that she did.

8. I am aware that the Defendant claims that she did not want to gamble and that she only did so because the Claimant insisted. This is not true and I would describe the Defendant as a keen gambler.

9. I am aware that the Defendant had facilities at various casinos, some where the Claimant had facilities of her own and some where the Claimant had no facilities but the Defendant used to host her. The Defendant was always keen that the Claimant used her facilities and when this happened (because the Defendant offered it or because the Claimant did not have facilities at that particular casino) then it would be recorded by a member of the Claimant's staff and a note kept of the amounts in question. Generally this would be done by … Masnunah Minudin, although if Masnunah was not present I would keep a record.

10. As a group it was common for everyone to borrow from each other and then tally up and settle any outstanding debts shortly afterwards. The Defendant was always very keen to make sure that each and every time the Claimant used her facilities or borrowed chips from her that this was recorded so that she would be properly repaid.

11. If the Claimant had used the Defendant's facilities or borrowed chips from her on any particular occasion, Masnunah would then confirm her records with the Defendant prior to the money being repaid. If Masnunah had not been present and I had kept a record, I would discuss it with both Masnunah and the Defendant. The sums would generally either be repaid the same night or after the trip (by way of bank transfer arranged by the Claimant's nephew and aide, Idris Ja'afar). Before any sums were finalized they were agreed with the Defendant who always made sure we were aware of anything that the Claimant owed to her. Once the amounts were settled further to the agreement of those involved I did not keep the records which were disposed of in the ordinary course of events."

Ms Nursubekti also described the loss of the Diamond Bracelet and of the diamonds:

"12. In or around June 2008 I recall there was a drama in the Claimant's household as a result of her realising that one of her diamond bracelets was missing (the "Diamond Bracelet"). I specifically recall this as all members of staff at the Claimant's London residence (where the Claimant was staying at the relevant time) helped carry out a thorough search of the residence and staff quarters looking for the Diamond Bracelet. I recall that the Claimant was very upset by its loss as was the Claimant's maid, Lucy, who I recall felt that she might be blamed for its disappearance. I recall that the Defendant did not join in the search and stayed in her room but at the time I did not think any[thing] of this. Now it seems as though she may have known there was no point in looking as we did as it would not be found.

13. In December 2009 I became aware (as did others within the household) that two very valuable diamonds had been stolen from the Claimant. The Claimant was evidently very upset when she discovered the theft. At the time we were all aware that the Defendant was to be leaving the Claimant's employ for reasons of ill-health which we had all found distressing. When the Defendant's true involvement in the theft became apparent all of us within the Claimant's household were deeply shocked and upset at her betrayal."

The evidence of Matthew Dowd

78. Mr Dowd made his first witness statement in the substantive proceedings on 30 August 2011. His second was made on 9 March 2012. In his second witness statement he confirmed the date on which the trial date was confirmed to the parties, and indicated the level of funds to which the defendant had access to meet her legal costs.

The defendant's evidence

79. As I have said, the defendant did not attend and was not represented at the hearing of the claim. Her evidence is contained in her witness statement in dated 14 October 2011. Rather then attempt to paraphrase that evidence, I shall set out what seem to be the main parts of it, in which the issues between the two sides in these proceedings are addressed.
80. Paragraphs 75 to 79 of the defendant's witness statement deal with the Diamond Bracelet. She described what she said happened in May or June 2008 and subsequently.

"75. [The Claimant] told me that she wanted to sell some things. She told me that no-one must know about this and that I could not tell anyone. She did not explain why. She showed me two bracelets ("the Bracelets"). One of the bracelets had several larger diamond-shaped stones, about 2 cm by 1 cm. The other had smaller circular stones, about 2-3 mm in diameter each, which I describe in detail below. [The Claimant] told me that she wanted to sell them and asked me to look for a buyer. I note from paragraph 31 of the Amended Particulars of Claim that [the Claimant] alleges that I sold only one of the Bracelets. This is incorrect. [The Claimant] asked me to arrange the sale of both items.

76. I was surprised that [the Claimant] was asking me to carry out this task. Although I knew that she had sold her jewellery before, this was the first time she asked me to do so on her behalf. At that time, however, Ms Aziz owed a total of about £820,000 under all five of my London casino credit facilities (approximately £170,000 to Les Ambassadeurs, £150,000 to Aspinalls, £100,000 to the Clermont, £200,000 to Crockfords and £200,000 to the Rendezvous Club) and perhaps this was why she chose me to sell the Bracelets rather than Idris or Afifa. I also understand that the payments to these casinos would have come directly from my bank accounts which may be another reason why [the Claimant] asked me to arrange the sale of the Bracelets.

77. I replied to [the Claimant] that I did not know anyone to whom I could sell the Bracelets. I asked if they could be sold to Mrs Moussaieff, whom I believed had previously bought or helped to sell Ms Aziz's jewellery. [The Claimant] said that Mrs Moussaieff could not be involved. [The Claimant] told me that I could find any buyer I liked and that I should use the sale money to pay her casino debts in my name. I agreed to do so but asked her whose name I could use to sell the Bracelets and whether I could say the Bracelets belonged to [her], because it would not be believed that a young and ordinary person like me would own very expensive pieces of jewellery like the Bracelets, which had huge stones and looked suitable for persons of high social standing. [The Claimant] replied that I should use my mother's name and I agreed to do so. Since I had never previously owned or sold any expensive pieces of jewellery and knew nothing about the jewellery world, I did not know what proof an honest buyer might need as to the ownership of the Bracelets.

78. As stated above, [the Claimant] had never asked me to sell anything for her before. However, I was aware that she had asked Afifa to sell a number of pieces of jewellery for her, although I do not know what involvement Afifa had in negotiating the terms of those sales. There were occasions when I drove Afifa to Mrs Moussaieff in the car and Afifa told me that she was selling stuff for "Mama", meaning Ms Aziz. I recalled one comment Afifa made to me when she said something like "Mama's jewellery is going to be all gone if she carries on like this". I think this was in 2007. I recall Masnunah saying the same thing. I also recall overhearing Afifa saying to someone (I think Masnunah) that more than 20 pieces of jewellery had been sold. I note that Ms Aziz has disclosed a section of bank statements which show payments from Moussaieff Jewellers to [the Claimant] on 7 January, 29 January, 30 January, 14 July and 25 August 2009, totalling £4,983,000 (see pages 80 to 81 and 84 FL-1). I also note from the RFI Response that [the Claimant] has refused to give further details of these sales.

79. I note from the RFI Response that [the Claimant] claims that I was handed one of the Bracelets by Masnunah in our shared room at 7 Pembroke Gardens in about mid-June 2008. I deny this. It was [the Claimant] who handed me the Bracelets while the two of us were in the car together. The next day, I took the Bracelets to the jewellery shop in Harrods, because I knew there was a high-class jewellery shop there. I approached a lady in the jewellery shop whom I had not met before, called Raya Swartz. I asked Ms Swartz about selling the Bracelets and showed them to her. She told me that Harrods did not buy jewellery and gave me the name and telephone number of Edwin Solomon as well as details of another dealer. I cannot recall the name of the other dealer. When I contacted him he did not appear interested in arranging the sale of the Bracelets and I then proceeded with Mr Solomon.

80. I telephoned Mr Solomon and arranged to meet him, I think the following day, at this office in Hatton Garden. I was nervous about Ms Aziz's instructions that the transaction be kept secret, and I therefore introduced myself as "Sue", which I explained was my Anglicised nickname. This is not my nickname and once I had more confidence that Mr Solomon would treat the matter as confidential, I confirmed my true full name."

The defendant says that she went to meet Mr Solomon; showed him the bracelets and told him that they belonged to her mother (para. 81 of her witness statement). Mr Solomon arranged the sale of the bracelets (including the Diamond Bracelet) for US$5.545 million (paras. 82 to 89). She says she told the claimant the price and the claimant approved it (para. 94), and that she paid out the sale proceeds in accordance with the claimant's instructions and kept the surplus of £579,000, again as instructed by the claimant. This was later used to offset the claimant's gambling debts to the defendant (para. 97). The defendant says she took sick leave between August and November 2008 (paras. 98 to 100).

81. The defendant's account of how she first came into possession of the diamonds appears in paragraphs 109 to 112 of her witness statement:

"109. One evening in about June or July 2009 I accompanied [the Claimant] to the women's lavatory at one of the Five Casinos. I told her that [the] casinos were pressing for the debts on the credit lines in my name to be repaid. We spoke in Malay, which was our common language, with some English words interspersed.

110. [The Claimant] told me that she could not pay, but then asked me if I could help her replicate 2 stones from 2 rings ("the Diamonds"), emphasising that I would have to keep quiet about this. I agreed to help her but at that point I did not know which rings she was referring to. [The Claimant] asked me to contact "orang dulu" which means "the person before", which I understood to be a reference to Mr Solomon, as he had arranged the sale of the Bracelets, to see if he could arrange the replication of the two stones. [The Claimant] did not explain why she wanted the replicas to be made. [She] said I was to tell no-one about it, not even Masnunah, but that I would receive a reward. [The Claimant] then told me that I should wait for further instructions.

111. A few days later, I was in one of the bedrooms in No. 7 Pembroke Gardens with Masnunah when Afifa called me on the telephone. She said that Ms Aziz had something to pass to me and asked me to go to No. 14 Pembroke Gardens, which I did. I told the security that Afifa was expecting me and met Afifa outside the door of her bedroom, which is on the floor above Ms Aziz's bedroom. Afifa gave me a maroon pouch. We did not discuss what I was going to do with the Diamonds. I already had my instructions from [the Claimant].

112. While I was walking down the staircase to leave No. 14, I looked in the pouch and saw the blue and yellow Diamond rings ("the Rings") I am now accused of stealing. So far as I can recall, I had never seen [the Claimant] wearing the Rings. I had only seen the Royal Princesses, Ms Aziz's daughters, wearing the Rings at important functions, so I had always assumed that the Rings [belonged] to Ms Aziz and that she allowed her daughters to wear them on important occasions."

82. The second occasion on which the defendant came into possession of the diamonds she described in this way, in paragraphs 118 to 127 and 140 of her witness statement:

"118. In 2009, the Five Casinos continued to press me for payment. I particularly recall receiving telephone calls from Mr Zaki of the Rendezvous in about October 2009. He said that the casino management wanted their debt paid. In about late November/early December 2009, he called again and said that the casino management wanted their debt paid and that the casino was going to send a legal letter to [the Claimant] if the debts were not paid. I knew [the Claimant] would not like this because if a legal letter was sent to No. 14 Pembroke Gardens, the matter might not be kept confidential. In addition, the mudims who accompanied the princes and princesses would have viewed [the Claimant's] gambling very dimly, and it could have damaged her reputation in Brunei, which was still high. In December 2009 Mr Zaki told me that if [the Claimant] could not pay the whole debt at once, it could be paid in instalments and he and I talked of the possibility of payment in four instalments over four months. He said he would talk to management. I recall that we had a further conversation, in which I told him that Ms Aziz would not be happy if he sent legal letters to her. He said he understood and would talk to his management and tell them not to send legal letters to Ms Aziz. In our conversations, Mr Zaki expressly acknowledged that the debts were those of [the Claimant], and were not mine personally, and he spoke to me on the basis that I would convey messages to [the Claimant].

119. I did not tell [the Claimant] about Mr Zaki's first call immediately. I did not think it would be a real problem because she way delaying payment all the time and I had to find the right time to tell her. This came about two weeks later (early November 2009) when we were in Macau. I told [the Claimant] about Mr Zaki's call while we were in the lavatory at the Wynn Club. Her response was a Malay phrase "akhirat baru ku bayar" which roughly translates as "I'll pay them at the end of the world". She told me that she owed the Wynn Club a lot – up to US$7 million. I cannot remember if I told [the Claimant] about Mr Zaki's second and third calls to me.

120. [The Claimant] then asked me whether the replicas of the Diamonds had been prepared, and I confirmed that they had. [The Claimant] told me that she wanted to sell the two Diamonds in the Rings and asked me to find a buyer, saying that she wanted the proceeds to be paid to my account in US dollars, without explaining why. She told me not to tell anyone and to wait for instructions with regard to the proceeds. [The Claimant] said nothing to me about the value of the Diamonds.

121. Before we left Macau, I called Mr Solomon and asked him to look for a buyer. I knew Mr Aldridge was already a possible buyer. I told Mr Solomon that I was not sure when I was next going to be in London.

122. I believe that it was at around this time that Mr Solomon or Mr Aldridge wanted to meet my mother and [the Claimant] and that he would need a letter from my mother saying that she owned the Diamonds and had authorised me to sell them, together with a letter from [the Claimant] confirming that she had given the Rings to my mother. I was surprised at this request, as it went beyond what had been asked for when I sold the Bracelets for [the Claimant]. I explained that it was not going to be easy for Mr Aldridge to meet [the Claimant].

123. In late November 2009, I was in Brunei as it was my turn to stay behind, now that [the Claimant] was rotating her staff rather than travelling with her whole entourage. [The Claimant] was in London when Afifa called me from London. I cannot recall on which telephone number I received this call. I had a Singapore contract telephone number during this time, two Brunei telephone numbers and a Brunei "pay as you go" number. Afifa said that "Mama" (i.e. [the Claimant]) wanted to pass me something. Afifa told me no one was to know I was in London and I should book my own travel and hotel as I could not stay at No. 7 Pembroke Gardens.

124. I telephoned [the Claimant] to tell her that Afifa had asked me to go to London. I cannot recall from which telephone number I made this call. It is possible that I made this call from the office mobile number which was available to [the Claimant's] employees who were on duty to make and receive calls relating to the household arrangements. So far as I recall, I did not specifically mention the Diamonds, but it was clear that [the Claimant] knew what I was talking about. I told Masnunah that I need to go back to Singapore to visit my aunt, who was unwell. I told Masnunah this because, on [the Claimant's] instructions, I could not tell anyone else that I was going to London.

125. During the week commencing 23 November 2009, I made arrangements to fly to London via Singapore as shown by the travel receipt, dated 27 November 2009, with Freme Travel Services Sdn, Bhd. … Before leaving for London, I sent text messages to Afifa telling her when I would arrive in London … . I flew via Singapore because by that time both my HSBC Singapore and London account had been closed. I had also been told by my relationship manager at HSBC Brunei that if any more casino payments came through the Brunei account, it would be closed. I was therefore anxious to open a bank account outside of Brunei which could accept a large payment of USD. Therefore, I opened a US Dollar account at UOB Bank in Singapore (account number 371-900-203-8) ("the UOB Account") and then flew to London the next day. I arrived in London on the evening of 2 December 2009. Afifa called me and I arranged to meet her the next morning at a place she suggested near a pub in Kensington Gardens, five minutes' walk from [the Claimant's] house. I asked Afifa if I could go over to No. 7 to get some winter clothing as it was cold but she refused, saying that no one must know I was in London.

126. The next morning, as arranged, Afifa gave me the Rings and I went straight to Mr Solomon's office. We walked to a small office nearby and someone replaced the real Diamonds with the copies in the Rings. Mr Solomon and I then met with Mr Aldridge. I recall that Mr Solomon told me not to tell Mr Aldridge about the replicas, which I thought was strange as I had assumed that Mr Solomon would already have told Mr Aldridge about them when they were made in June or July. He asked me why I wanted the replicas and I said my mother wanted them as mementos.

127. On the way back from Mr Solomon's office, in a taxi, I sent a text message to Afifa to tell her I was on my way to meet her. When I was closer, I telephoned Afifa and then met her by the main road with the taxi waiting for me near No. 14. This was in the late morning of 3 December 2009. When we met, I gave the Rings, now containing the replica stones, to Afifa. They were in the same pouch she had given me.

…

140. In about mid-December 2009, Afifa told me that other people in the household (e.g. Lucy and Busera) knew that [the Claimant] was selling jewellery and that she (Afifa) had taken out the Rings for [the Claimant]. She asked me why the colour of the yellow diamond looked different. I said I didn't know and asked what [the Claimant] had said. She replied that [the Claimant] had not said anything. This reassured me."

83. The defendant referred to the meeting at the home of Pehin Ja'afar on 1 January 2010, in paragraphs 145 to 153 of her witness statement:

"145. On the morning of 1 January 2010 I received a call from Datin Salbiah. She said she wanted me to see her so that she could pay me what [the Claimant] owed me. I drove to her house, arriving at about 7.15 pm that evening. I took with me also receipts for visas to France which I had obtained for two of [the Claimant's] adopted sons.

146. When I arrived at Datin Salbiah's house, she asked me to sit in a large reception or prayer room. Idris then entered. I was not aware [he] was back in Brunei. I sat on a chair and he stood over me looking serious and hostile. He asked me what I had been doing in London and I asked him who had told him I had been there. Idris said that two diamonds belonging to the Brunei Royal Family members had been found to be missing by one of the Princesses and he mentioned HRH Fadzilah's name. He asked me whether I knew anything about it.

147. I said to him, "Bang [i.e. Brother], you know that boss gambled heavily and she needed to pay off her gambling debts". (Both Idris and I usually referred to [the Claimant] as "boss"). Idris said, "Yes I know". I told him that [the Claimant] had instructed me to sell the Diamonds to pay off her debts in my name. I added, "Bang, you yourself know that she always used Afifa to sell her jewellery and you yourself had sold a few for her". Idris replied, "We all know that. Nothing new to me. I just want to know what happened".

148. I told him that [the Claimant] had instructed me to sell two of her diamonds. Idris corrected me and said that the Diamonds belonged to the Princesses Azemah and Fadzilah and not to [the Claimant]. I then recounted to him how Ms Aziz asked me to copy the Diamonds in London and sell them in Geneva. Idris didn't look surprised when he heard what I said, but told me to leave [the Claimant] out of the picture. I became worried when I heard that. I asked him point blank what he meant and whether I was to be blamed for the loss of the Diamonds. He just nodded his head. I shook my head to show that I wasn't prepared to agree to this. I said "Bang how can boss make me face all this myself? She even said she might want to get back the stones".

149. Idris did not look happy and told me that if I didn't do what he wanted me to do I would be put in jail in Brunei. He asked me to think about it and left the room. Then Rahimin, Ms Aziz's sister's son, came into the room, as did Pehin Ja'afar. Rahimin, who is a very large man, started shouting obscenities at me, calling me a "f***ing bitch". He shouted "Do you believe I'll punch you?" and moved towards me. He shouted that [the Claimant] had treated me so well and I should be grateful. He shouted that he felt like slapping my face. I was frightened. At this point Idris came in and asked Rahimin to cool down and leave the room.

150. Idris then asked whether I had made a decision, by which I took from him to be asking whether I was prepared to be made a scapegoat. He talked about people who said bad things about [the Claimant] being sent to jail and referred to what had happened to Ms Amir as well as Mr Hendawy being jailed for betraying her. He said that I too would be put in jail in Brunei if I did not cooperate and nobody knew what could happen when I was in jail. He said that the Sultan himself was now involved in this, that the police were coming and that I was in deep trouble.

151. I recall thinking that what was happening could not be real and whether Ms Aziz had done something wrong for which I had to take the blame. I felt that my liberty was under threat and reluctantly agreed to co-operate and take the blame. Idris told me that when I took the blame for [the Claimant], I had to make it look real, or words to that effect.

152. Idris then left the room, making a call as he went. I heard him call the other person on the telephone "Pehin Ashrin", who I knew to be a very high-ranking officer in the Brunei police force. Then, to my surprise, Masnunah and Afifa came into the room. I did not know they were in Brunei. Datin Salbiah also joined them, as did Afifa's fiancé and Amalina. They sat away from me in the room, looking at me angrily whilst talking to each other. I was upset and did not want to say anything. Rahimin then came back into the room and asked me why I was so stupid as to use the Rings as collateral for some property deal. I did not know what he was talking about, but because Idris had told me earlier that I was in deep trouble, I thought it would be safer not to disagree with Rahimin. Masnunah told me that Afifa had mentioned something about my using the rings in relation to a property deal in London. I therefore learnt about the idea of using the rings as the basis for a property deal, which then became part of my "confusion" overhearing these conversations.

153. About an hour after I heard Idris talk to Pehin Ashrin, Brunei police officers arrived. There were six or seven in uniform and five to six in plain clothes. I heard Idris calling one of them "Pengiran Mettusin" and speaking to him for some time. I also overheard Idris telling the police that I had taken the Rings and made replicas of them. I saw Pehin Ja'afar show the replicas to the police. I also overheard Afifa telling the police that I had asked her for the Rings to show to property developers. I saw a Brunei police officer passing Idris my passport. Idris said that he would be keeping my passport and told me to follow the police officers. As I was leaving Datin Salbiah's house with the police officers, I heard Idris telling Pengiran Mettusin that he would get back to him after he talked to Ms Aziz about how to handle this. I think I was at Datin Salbiah's house for a total of about three hours."

84. In paragraphs 154 to 171 and 174, the defendant referred to the statements she made to the Brunei police in early January 2010.

"154. The Brunei police officers seized two mobile telephones and one laptop which I had in my car. They made me drive them back to my flat (with a police car in front of and behind mine) and searched it for about 30 to 40 minutes. I don't know if they took anything.

155. They then made me drive to the CID headquarters in Ong Sum Ping. After I had waited for about two hours, they took me to a small room, where I was questioned by a male Brunei officer call Hamidun and a female office called Mariyani. Mariyani had a laptop in the room, on which she was typing. I can't recall if there was a printer there as well.

156. At the start of the interrogation, I asked to see a lawyer or make a telephone call. The officers refused both my requests. They then interrogated me from about 2 am to 6 or 7 am. I was very tired and frightened and had not eaten since lunch the previous day.

157. I told the police officers during the interrogation that I was not well and was having a severe migraine headache. I was having difficulty even opening my eyes as the lighting in the room (a table lamp and overhead lights) was very strong. They ignored what I said and the light continued to beam at me. I also told them I was on medication and I wanted to see a doctor. Hamidun told me not to "wayang" (i.e. play act) and not to waste their time.

158. They also did not administer any warning or caution before proceeding to question me. No one ever said to me that I was under arrest. During questioning, Hamidun asked me whether I knew who I was dealing with. I said I thought it was [the Claimant]. Hamidun said it was His Majesty, the Sultan. Hamidun told me that the Diamonds belongs to the Princesses Azemah and Fadzilah. Mariyani also said the same thing and asked me to cooperate.

159. I told them the truth, saying I had done nothing wrong and it was [the Claimant] who had asked me to copy and sell the Diamonds in order for her to pay off her casino debts that she had put under my name. They said that this wasn't what they wanted to hear and whenever I mentioned [the Claimant] and casinos, the refused to write down what I said.

160. Hamidun then called someone on the telephone. I heard Hamidun calling the other person on the telephone "Idris". Hamidun spoke on the telephone to Idris for some time. After he ended the telephone call, he turned to me and said if I wanted to get out, I had better do what they said. He said that if I didn't cooperate, they would "tahan" (which is the Malay equivalent for "detain" me) there. He said, "We don't know how long you will be taken here. Maybe you will never come out". I was very frightened by this.

161. During police questioning, my mind was confused and I was worried for my own safety. I was so confused that I didn't even know what I was saying. I remember clearly that Mariyani kept interrupting me and saying not to tell her what she didn't want to hear. Hamidun's threat was constantly on my mind, I simply signed whatever Mariyani asked me to sign on statements that she had typed and printed out. I was also badly affected by my severe headache and the light was making my headache worse. I recall Mariyani telling me to write an apology for allegedly giving a false statement earlier. Hamidun mentioned that I had to write the apology to cover them and also that Idris wanted this. Hamidun said I better do as told or else they would "tahan" me until I wrote it. At that time I was feeling sick, confused, tired and frightened by Hamidun's threats. I felt I had no choice but to do as told.

162. I was not very clear as to how long I had been questioned. To me, the questioning appeared to last a very, very long tome. I felt tired and the light was hurting me. I see now from being shown the Brunei police statements exhibited at pages 38 to 65 of Mr Dowd's First Affidavit in these proceedings that I apparently made the first "confession" at 04:35 on 2 January 2010 … .

163. As Idris and the police had made it clear that I had to take the blame for the sale of the Diamonds, I told them that there were three gentlemen by the names of Mr Sheik of Lebanon, Mr Libon of Israel and a Mr Jaby with whom I was doing a London property deal and for which I needed the Rings to show them I had money to pay them. These three individuals were completely fictitious. I said that I had got the Rings from Afifa and had promised her some money if the deal went through. I came up with that story after Rahimin mentioned it at Datin Salibah's house the previous evening and he told me how stupid I was for using the Rings as collateral in a property deal. None of it was true, but I was so confused because of the fact I had been questioned all night, that I thought I would be safe if I gave the police the story they wanted to hear. The police made it clear that I would not get off the charges if I did not tell them what they wanted to hear. I thought that if I created a story they would just let me off and let me go back home. At that time, I still believed that this was a terrible misunderstanding and that [the Claimant] would come and save me.

164. After I signed the first statement, the police officers let me sleep on a sofa in the CID headquarters. I slept for about two hours. I did not have breakfast, although I think they did offer me something to eat. I was feeling very unwell.

165. At about 10 or 11 am, the police officers made me take a polygraph test. This test was administered by a police officer, Linda, whom I knew because she also did bodyguard duties for the princesses. So far as I can recall, the polygraph test took about an hour.

166. Linda then spoke to me for approximately two hours. She told me that the Royal Family was above the law, and that even if they did wrong someone else had to take the blame. She told me that if I took the blame, then everything would be all right and I would be released and asked me to think about it.

167. I can't recall much about what happened for the rest of that day. I see, however, from the exhibits to Mr Dowd's Affidavit that I signed a second "confession" at 22:15 that evening much along the same lines as the first, so far as I can tell … . One thing I do recall specifically is that when the police officers asked me if [the Claimant] knew I was in London in December, I said "yes" but they refused to write that down and wrote "no" instead.

168. On the morning of 3 January 2010, Linda came to me at about 10 am. She asked me to eat but I did not want to as I was still feeling very sick. She asked me if I had thought about what she said the day before. I said yes but I was not going to co-operate by taking the blame. At this point, Masnunah rang Linda, who passed me her telephone. Masnunah was on her way to the airport, she told me in Malay: "Just do whatever they want and I will speak to boss for you". I kept quiet.

169. I see from the exhibit to Mr Dowd's affidavit that I signed a third statement at 14:45 that afternoon … . I don't remember much about it except that the police officers would refuse to write down anything which implicated [the Claimant] and told me that if I just took the blame and apologised, they would let me go. They said His Majesty wanted the Diamonds back so if I got the Diamonds back, everything that was happening to me would stop. I told Mariyani and Hamidun that [the Claimant] asked me to copy and sell the Diamonds because she was in debt with casinos in London but they shook their heads and said they could not put that in. Hamidun said, "Didn't they tell you to leave Puan Hajah Mariam out?" The contents of the second version of my statement were created by Mariyani and Hamidun. It left out what I had told them of [the Claimant's] involvement. Mariyani asked me to write an apology for having given false statements earlier and Hamidun explained that Idris had asked for this. They told me I had to do as I was told. Otherwise they would "tahan" me until I did so. At the time I was sick, confused, tired and frightened by Hamidan's threats and felt that I had no choice but to do as I was told.

170. According to the Brunei police statements I was detained and interrogated for 48 hours on 2 and 3 January 2010. During this time, Hamidun spoke to Idris when Mariyani was preparing statements. Each time after Hamidun spoke to Idris, Hamidun became impatient and asked me to do what they want me to do. Hamidun wanted me to repeat what they wanted me to tell and sign the statements prepared by Mariyani.

171. After I signed the third "confession" and apology on 3 January 2010, I was released at about 7 pm but I was told that I had to report to the Brunei police at the CID Headquarters every day at 10 am. The police told me that was at the request of [the Claimant's] retinue. A friend of mine was required to vouch for me by way of "jamin mulut" which I have been told is a kind of "bail by mouth". My passport was kept by Idris.

…

174. I recall that on 6 January 2010 when I reported into the Brunei CID, they asked me to give another statement. I don't know what it was for but did whatever they wanted. I was feeling very lost and alone and wanted to go back to Singapore. Mariyani and Hamidun told me I had to give and sign another statement if I wanted to go back to Singapore. They said that if I didn't co-operate, they would "tahan" me until I signed it and that I would not be allowed to go back to Singapore. Under their threats, I (on 6 January 2010) signed the statement prepared by Mariyani that day … ."

85. In paragraphs 175 to 182 of her witness statement, the defendant referred to her conversation with Mr Ja'afar in his car on 4 January 2010:

"175. When I was released on 3 January 2010 at about 7 pm I was very tired and feeling sick. I got back home and took my migraine medication and called a friend. She came to meet me and we went to a restaurant, from where I called Idris at about 10 pm.

176. I cried over the telephone. He did not seem to want to talk to me and asked me what I wanted. I told him that I had done what he wanted me to do and that I wanted to go back to Singapore. I asked whether I could meet him to collect my passport. At that time I was very worried, sick, tired and confused. Idris said he would call me. After my telephone call with Idris, the police came to the restaurant and took me to the hospital to do some blood and urine tests which they said should have been done on my discharge from their custody.

177. About three hours later, after getting back from the hospital, Idris called me about 1:00 am on 4 January 2010. He asked me to meet him straight away at the car park opposite Coffee Bean, Centrepoint. I met Idris at about 1:30 am at the car park. He told me to get into his car, which I did. When I entered his car, he locked all the doors. I was very frightened when he locked all the doors because I thought that he was going to take me back to the police and was about to break down in tears. He asked me to keep quiet.

178. Idris told me that if I wanted his help, then I would need to give a recorded "statement" to make things "water-tight" for Ms Aziz. I do not now recall if he used the exact word "water-tight" but the idea he conveyed was that he was to make sure [the Claimant] was not seen to be involved. He did not show me the recorder, but kept reaching into his pocket. He said that before he started the recording, he wanted to tell me the important points that I needed to mention. Idris said that he was asked to make it look as real as possible, like a conversation and that we should speak in English so that others could understand our conversation. Idris and I were both native Malay speakers and it was unusual for us to speak together in English for such length.

179. Idris spent between 15 and 30 minutes telling me the important things I needed to mention during our conversation. I remember he kept scrolling through his telephone, like he was looking at text messages to remind himself of what I needed to say. Basically, he gave me the headline points on what he wanted me to say. He told me to say I was sorry and that I would get the Diamonds back for [the Claimant]. He told me to leave Afifa out of it and I should say that she had passed me the Rings but did not know what was going on. He agreed to my explaining that the sale of the Diamonds was to pay casino debts but said I had to leave [the Claimant] and her connection to my casino facilities out of it. He said that if I did as he wanted, he would give me back my passport and I believed him.

180. Before he started the audio-recording, I kept asking him why [the Claimant] would make me a scapegoat. He said I should keep quiet about what [the Claimant] had asked me to do. He made the same threat as before – that if I didn't co-operate I would be thrown into jail and my safety could not be guaranteed. I was frightened and just wanted to return to Singapore. I felt that I had no choice but to do what he wanted. He then audio-recorded a discussion along the lines we had discussed.

181. I kept saying that I was sorry and that I was going to get the Rings back for [the Claimant], as discussed with Idris before the recording began. I explained that I had spoken to Mr Solomon and made sure the Rings were safe and said that I was going to try and borrow some money from people, he asked if I still had property in London, which I assumed referred to the property deal I had heard mentioned by Rahimin when I was at Datin Salbiah's house.

182. At the end of the conversation, Idris told me that he would send the tape to the UK lawyers. He saw that I was very frightened. He said he would talk to [the Claimant] for me and then I would be allowed to go back to Singapore. He said that [the Claimant] had treated me well and I should do something for her, from which I took to mean taking the blame with regard to the sale of the Diamonds."

Issue (i): Is the defendant liable to the claimant for the conversion of the diamonds?

Submissions for the claimant

86. It is the claimant's case that the defendant's conversion of the Diamond Bracelet preceded her conversion of the diamonds. However, the conversion of the Diamond Bracelet was discovered only after the conversion of the diamonds was exposed. It is, therefore, convenient to consider the conversion of the diamonds first.
87. For the claimant it is submitted that the diamonds were handed to the defendant in the circumstances explained by Afifa Abdullah in her witness statement (in paras. 9 to 26). The essential facts here are that in July 2009 the defendant represented to Ms Abdullah that she needed to borrow valuable jewellery belonging to the claimant because she was involved in a property deal. She said that she needed to show her prospective partners in that deal that she was serious and that nobody, including the claimant, was to be told about the loan of the diamonds (paras. 9 and 10 of Ms Abdullah's witness statement). To help the defendant, Ms Abdullah ultimately handed over the diamonds to her in London in July 2009 (paras. 12 to 15 of Ms Abdullah's witness statement). The defendant returned the diamonds shortly afterwards (para. 16 of Ms Adbullah's witness statement). It is common ground that by this time the defendant had taken the diamonds to Mr Solomon to have them measured and photographed to allow the replicas to be made. In October 2009, Ms Abdullah and the defendant agreed that the defendant would come to London and borrow the diamonds for the last time (para. 21 of Ms Abdullah's witness statement). The defendant came to London and collected the diamonds as agreed. The defendant returned what she claimed were the diamonds a few hours later (para. 25 of Ms Abdullah's witness statement). It is common ground that these were not the diamonds but replicas.
88. In summary, therefore, Mr Mallin submitted: first, that the defendant deceived Ms Abdullah into handing over the diamonds; secondly, the defendant dishonestly replaced the diamonds with replicas without telling either Ms Abdullah or the claimant; thirdly, the claimant knew nothing about the defendant's possession of, or dealings with, the diamonds and did not authorize their being sold; and fourthly, the defendant kept the proceeds of sale for herself. This, submitted Mr Mallin, clearly constituted the tort of conversion.

The defendant's defence

89. The relevant part of the defendant's defence is set out in detail in paragraph 24 and following paragraphs of the Amended Defence. The substance of her defence is this. During the course of a conversation in the women's lavatory of a London casino one evening in June or July 2009, the defendant told the claimant that one of the casinos at which the they gambled – one of the "Five Casinos" as they are referred to in the Amended Defence – was pressing for the repayment of debts on credit lines in the name of the defendant but which, in truth, represented debts of the claimant. The defendant contends that the claimant said she could not pay the debts and asked her to find out from Mr Solomon if he could arrange for replicas to be made of the diamonds. A few days later Ms Abdullah handed the diamonds to the defendant at the claimant's home (para. 27 of the Amended Defence). The defendant took the diamonds to Mr Solomon who did what was necessary to arrange for them to be copied. The defendant then returned the diamonds to Ms Abdullah (para. 28 of the Amended Defence). In early November 2009, in the women's lavatory at the Wynn club in Macau the claimant told the defendant that she wanted the defendant to arrange for the sale of the diamonds; to put the proceeds of sale into a US$ bank account in the defendant's name and await instructions from her as to what to do with the money (para. 30 of the Amended Defence). In late November 2009, Ms Abdullah telephoned the defendant and arranged for her to collect the diamonds in London. The defendant travelled from Brunei to Singapore, where she opened the US$ account (referred to as the "UOB Account"), and then on to London. On 3 December 2009, the defendant collected the diamonds from Ms Abdullah. She then went to Mr Solomon who replaced the diamonds in their rings with the replicas. The defendant then returned the replicas to Ms Abdullah (para. 34 of the Amended Defence). The diamonds were then sold to Gemcut in Geneva. The claimant directed the defendant to deal with the proceeds of sale in the manner described in the Amended Defence (at para. 37).
90. Thus the defendant contends that in all her dealings with the diamonds she was acting with the claimant's full knowledge and consent. She therefore denies having committed the tort of conversion.

Discussion and conclusion on issue (i)

91. On all the evidence before me, and in the light of the pleadings on either side and the submissions made to me, I am in no doubt that the claimant's case is to be preferred. In my view the defendant's defence is simply not capable of belief.
92. I should make it plain at the outset that, having seen and heard all of the claimant's principal witnesses giving their evidence on oath or on affirmation at the trial of the claim, I found all of them honest, credible and convincing in every material aspect of the evidence they gave. All of them came up to proof. I also believe that all of the claimant's witnesses, including those who did not give evidence in court or by video-link but whose evidence was produced to the court solely in written form, were telling the truth in a straightforward and mutually consistent way, in a desire to assist the court. I accept all of the facts presented in their evidence. In particular, I accept all of the facts I have recorded above in my summary of the evidence they gave. Where their account differs from that to be seen in the defendant's witness statement and the Amended Defence, it is theirs I prefer. I bear in mind that the defendant did not give evidence in court, and that no witnesses were called to give evidence to support her version of events. For this reason I would in any event give her account less weight and less credence than evidence given live and reinforced by the evidence of others. Had the defendant come to the trial to give evidence in person I think it highly unlikely that her account of events would have withstood the test of cross-examination. In any event, in the light of the evidence that was given, and without needing to speculate about evidence that was not, I accept the claimant's factual case in full. The inescapable reality of this case is that if the defendant was telling the truth a large number of other witnesses have been telling a succession of serious lies. I cannot accept that they were.
93. In coming to those findings and conclusions, I have had in mind several striking features of the case as it has unfolded.
94. In the first place, the claimant herself was present to give oral evidence at trial, whereas the defendant was not. As Mr Mallin submitted, there is no basis – in this case at least – for giving any material weight to the evidence of a party who chooses not to appear as against the contrary evidence of a party who does appear and does give live evidence. Secondly, the claimant's case has been supported in all material particulars by the evidence of other witnesses. For example, Mr Ibrahim gave evidence about the circumstances in which the defendant made her confession to the Brunei police. Ms Minudin gave evidence about what the defendant said on 1 January 2010 at the home of Mr Ja'afar's parents, including her denial that she had been in London and her reverting to the story about the "property deal". And Ms Minudin also described the true nature of the arrangements between the claimant and the defendant for the payment of gambling debts. Mr Ja'afar also gave evidence about the true nature of the arrangements between the claimant and the defendant for the payment of gambling debts, consistent with Ms Minudin's account. He gave evidence consistent with Ms Minudin's about what the defendant said in the meeting at his parent's house. He also gave evidence of the taped conversation with the defendant on 4 January 2010, in which she made various admissions. Ms Abdullah has given evidence as to the circumstances in which she handed the diamonds to the defendant in June or July 2009 and again in November 2009. She also produced evidence of the Facebook "conversation" on 17 December 2009 in which the defendant said she hoped she – Ms Abdullah – would not tell the claimant that she had asked for her help: "hope u dun tell mama tat I asked u to help me". This message strikes at the heart of the defendant's defence, which is the proposition that the claimant knew all about the sale of the diamonds because it was she who instigated it. Mr Hussain, the claimant's financial adviser, has given evidence to the effect that it would be fanciful to suggest the claimant did not have the financial resources to pay the debts alleged by the defendant otherwise than by selling her jewellery.
95. By contrast, not only have there been no witnesses to corroborate the defendant's account of events, but the defendant herself has given various, contradictory accounts of her dealings with the diamonds. At one stage, however, she made clear and full admissions of her theft of the diamonds. The chronology of her various accounts and admissions is as follows. When first confronted by Mr Ja'afar at his parents' home on 1 January 2010, the defendant denied even being in London at the beginning of December 2009. She had told the claimant that she was in Singapore at the time when she was, in fact, in London. After Ms Abdullah and Ms Minudin arrived, the defendant initially maintained the same story but then admitted that she had, in fact, been in London. At this point she claimed she had needed the diamonds as "collateral" for her property deal. The defendant was then taken into custody by the Brunei police. The defendant made her first statement to the police on 2 January 2010, accepting that she had persuaded Mr Abdullah to hand her the diamonds to show the two property investors. She admitted that, when the replica diamonds were found to be fakes, she told Ms Abdullah not to tell the claimant about what she had been doing because she knew it had been wrong. She agreed that every answer had been accurately recorded. In her second interview on 2 January 2010 she maintained the story that she had needed the diamonds to show to Messrs. Sheik and Libon. On 3 January 2010 she provided a further statement, now changing her story and admitting that she had needed £1.5 million to pay gambling debts and had decided to use the diamond rings to get the money she needed, intending to get them back after she had paid her debts. She then gave an account matching Ms Abdullah's. She apologized for betraying the claimant's trust in her. On 6 January 2010, in her fourth statement, she expressed the "greatest regret" and sought forgiveness.
96. When Mr Ja'afar met the defendant at about 1.30 a.m on 4 January 2010 he recorded their conversation (para. 30 of Mr Ja'afar's witness statement). I have set out the most significant parts of the conversation in my summary of Mr Ja'afar's evidence. The defendant admitted swapping "the rings". She said that what she had told the police was exactly what she was telling Mr Ja'afar. She admitted that she took "the rings" because of her gambling debts. She admitted that the Lebanese business partners – presumably Messrs Sheik and Libon – were "bullshit". She spoke of the possibility of gaining a pardon for what she had done. She made it clear that she wanted the claimant to pardon her. Although she maintained the allegation that she had given US$1.7 million to Mr Solomon – an allegation now known to be false – she admitted that she had twice told Ms Abdullah that she needed to borrow the diamonds. She denied knowing anything about the Diamond Bracelet: a denial she has now retracted, though she says she dealt with the Diamond Bracelet only in accordance with the claimant's instructions. She revealed that she had thought about the legal implications of selling the diamonds in Switzerland rather than in London. She admitted having lied in the accounts she had given to Mr Ja'afar on 1 January 2010. Between 5 and 10 January 2010, the defendant sent text messages to Mr Ja'afar seeking his help in speaking to the claimant, and expressing regret for what she had done.
97. It seems to me that the cumulative effect of these conflicting accounts and admissions, set against the consistency apparent in the claimant's case, is overwhelming. The defendant's attempts to avoid the clear import of her statements to the Brunei police and the recorded conversation with Mr Ja'afar are, in my view, entirely lacking in credibility. I reject her denials of the truth of the confessions she made. There is nothing by way of independent evidence to corroborate those denials, nor even oral evidence from the defendant herself, which could have been tested by cross-examination. Mr Mallin submitted, and I accept, that the various explanations tendered by the defendant in an effort to exculpate herself are wholly unconvincing.
98. The court has had the opportunity to consider the four statements made by the defendant to the Brunei police between 2 and 6 January 2010 and to hear the evidence of Mr Ibrahim who was present at, and involved in, each interview. The defendant does not seem to dispute that the statements accurately record what she said. As Mr Mallin submitted, if the court accepts that these statements were made by the defendant freely without any form of threat or improper influence then the evidence in them alone is fatal to the defendant's case. The defendant later contended that the statements were not freely given (paras. 78 to 92 of her Amended Defence and paras. 145 to 174 of her witness statement). But I do not accept that. As Mr Mallin submitted, Mr Ibrahim was an entirely credible witness. I believe his rejection of the defendant's allegations. I do not accept the defendant's contention that her admissions were forced out of her. Although she alleged that the police refused to write down what she told them as the correct version of events, she has offered no credible explanation for the assertions she did make in the course of her interviews. For example, in her first statement the defendant first told the story about Dion Limited and Messrs Sheik and Libon. This story was then elaborated in the second interview. As Mr Mallin pointed out, one is therefore bound to ask what it was that made the defendant say this if it was not true – which she later accepted it was not – or if it was not part of her continuing attempt to deceive. The defendant did not suggest in her pleadings or in her evidence that she was told to say it by the police. The explanation she offered in paragraph 163 of her witness statement is not in my view cogent. She said there that she came up with the story after Rahimin mentioned it at Mr Ja'afar's parents' house at the meeting on 1 January 2010 before she was taken to the police station. She said that Rahimin told her how stupid she was for using the rings as collateral in a property deal. But, as Mr Mallin observed, Rahimin could not have told her how stupid she was to do this unless she herself had said that she had done it in the first place. Although the defendant has denied saying this to Ms Abdullah, Ms Abdullah has said that she did. And I accept Ms Abdullah's evidence. In her third statement to the police the defendant abandoned her earlier accounts and admitted misappropriating the diamonds. The account she now gave was essentially consistent with that given by Ms Abdullah in her evidence, and with the claimant's case. The defendant has maintained her allegation that the police officers refused to take down her true account, but she has never explained in any plausible way why she saw the need to depart from the first fictitious account she had given the police, or how she came to assert what she did in the second account she gave, which, on her evidence, was also fictitious. In short, as Mr Mallin submitted, it is impossible to reconcile the statements the defendant made with her explanation of how she came to make them. Her credibility as a witness, and the integrity of her defence, are thus damaged beyond repair.
99. Having heard and seen Mr Ja'afar give his evidence about the circumstances in which he had recorded his conversation with the defendant on 4 January 2010, I accept the truth of his account. The defendant has not disputed that the transcript of the tape-recording produced in evidence by the claimant is accurate. Thus, as Mr Mallin submitted, if it is accepted that what the defendant said during that conversation was said without any form of prompting or improper influence, then that evidence alone, quite independently of the statements to the Brunei police, confounds the defendant's defence. Having listened to the tape-recording, which was played in court, and having heard Mr Ja'afar's evidence about it, I cannot accept that the defendant was under any form of duress or improper pressure when she said what she did. She appeared to speak freely, and unprompted. I cannot accept her contention that what she said was said on the instructions of Mr Ja'afar. I found Mr Ja'afar a credible witness. He refuted the defendant's account of what happened in the car. I accept his evidence about that. But even without the benefit of Mr Ja'afar's testimony, I would reject the defendant's account. She claimed that the conversation between herself and Mr Ja'afar – including the period of between 15 and 30 minutes during which he was, she said, telling her what to say – took place all at once. An important detail in the defendant's account is that Mr Ja'afar locked the doors of the car before the conversation began. When one listens to the tape-recording one can clearly hear the doors being locked. This is immediately followed by the conversation that has been transcribed, which contains nothing at all in the way of Mr Ja'afar coaching the defendant to say what he wanted her to. The tone of the exchanges between the defendant and Mr Ja'afar gives no hint of a staged conversation of the kind suggested by the defendant. The conversation rambled. It touched on matters the defendant had no need to mention if she was to satisfy the demands she said Mr Ja'afar had made. This was not a terse and quick admission of guilt. It was far from that. The defendant told Mr Ja'afar that she would tell him "what I told the police and what I told to the police is exactly what I am telling you". The account given by the defendant was, in substance, the same as the one she had now given to the police. During the conversation the defendant was still saying that Mr Solomon had asked for US$1.7 million. It is hard to see what motive Mr Ja'afar could have had for telling her to say that. As Mr Mallin submitted, this is consistent with the defendant still trying to keep some of the fruits of her deception even though it had now been exposed. The defendant also digressed about the legal consequences of parting with stolen property in Switzerland. That she should do this is not altogether easy to reconcile with the notion that the conversation had been set up by Mr Ja'afar. And her complaints about the claimant's conduct – for example, "Boss was really pushing me and I was really upset and I was very angry …" – do not sit well with the idea that the conversation had been rehearsed in advance. This is scarcely what Mr Ja'afar would have wanted the defendant to say.
100. I cannot avoid the conclusion that the defendant has not told the truth about several things that matter in these proceedings.
101. She maintained that she had paid US$1.7 million to Mr Solomon. But it is clear from what is said about the proceeds of sale of the diamonds in the Amended Defence and in paragraphs 132 to 137 of the defendant's witness statement, from Mr Dowd's evidence in support of the application for summary judgment, and from the defendant's open offer to repay the whole sum claimed – US$3.7 million, which included the US$1.7 million allegedly paid to Mr Solomon – that she no longer maintains that allegation.
102. In his witness statement Mr Solomon said that the defendant told him that the diamonds were owned by her mother and had been given to her mother by the claimant. This is the same story as she had told him about the Diamond Bracelet. This is effectively acknowledged in paragraph 122 of the defendant's witness statement. The story was that the defendant's mother was the claimant's badminton coach and personal assistant and that the claimant had given her mother valuable gifts as a retirement present. The defendant produced a letter to give support to this story. But she seems to have realized that this could no longer be sustained once enough of the truth had emerged.
103. In the form in which it was eventually pleaded, the whole of the defendant's defence to the claim implies that the claimant needed to dispose of both the Diamond Bracelet and the diamonds, and needed to do so secretly. It is said that the claimant caused the defendant to open credit facilities at various casinos in the defendant's name, to facilitate the claimant's gambling – not hers – and that the liabilities on those accounts were, in fact, liabilities of the claimant – and, again, not hers. The claimant, it is said, was unable to pay her debts under those facilities and needed to sell, first, the Diamond Bracelet and, later, the diamonds. It was for this reason, so the defence suggests, that the claimant instructed the defendant to make those sales and apply the proceeds of sale towards those debts. These allegations are pleaded in detail in paragraphs 5 to 37 of the Amended Defence. The defendant's allegations about the credit facilities have been denied by the claimant, in my view convincingly. And her account has been supported by the evidence of Ms Minudin and Mr Ja'afar – again, in my view, convincingly. But in any case I find the defendant's scenario impossible to believe. As the defendant appears to know very well, the claimant is an extremely wealthy woman. I cannot accept that she would have needed to sell the diamonds or the Diamond Bracelet to pay debts of the scale described by the defendant. Mr Hussain, the claimant's financial adviser, said that it was "bordering on the absurd" to suggest that the claimant would have had to sell the diamonds to meet the debts alleged. I see no reason to disagree. Even if the claimant had decided to sell the diamonds – and the Diamond Bracelet – I see no reason to find that she would not have done so in the normal way. She could have gone to Mrs Moussaieff, a reputable jewellery dealer from whom the Sultan had bought the Blue Diamond in the first place. After all, it was to Mrs Moussaieff that she sent the ring with – as she wrongly supposed – the Blue Diamond in it, to have the ring resized, and the other ring with – as she hoped – the Yellow Diamond in it, once her suspicion was aroused. If, for whatever reason, the claimant had wanted to sell those jewels confidentially, no doubt she could have done so. If, as the defendant alleges, the claimant needed the money to pay off her gambling debts, she would, surely, have been anxious to raise as much money as she could on their sale. And this, surely, would have been by orthodox means such as an auction. As Mr Mallin submitted, there is no obvious reason for the claimant to have engaged in the charade of having the diamonds copied and replacing them in the rings with the replicas.
104. Moreover, the sums of money involved would not make sense if the defendant's defence were correct. As was explained by the claimant in paragraph 59 of her second witness statement, the shortfall between what the defendant received from the sale of the Diamond Bracelet and the diamonds and what she paid to the casinos appears to have been £3.7 million (para. 59(g)). At the time when, as the defendant alleged, the claimant was instructing her to sell the Diamond Bracelet to pay her gambling debts, the claimant had already paid the defendant £1.3 million, of which the defendant had only paid out £120,000. The defendant therefore already held £1.2 million before the sale of the Diamond Bracelet (para. 59(i)). After that, the claimant continued to make payments to the defendant even though the defendant would by that time have had a significant surplus (para. 59(j) to (m)). At the time when, as the defendant alleged, the claimant instructed her to sell the diamonds because she could not pay her debts, she – the defendant – was holding £2.2 million which was £700,000 more than the debts in question. It eventually became clear that the defendant had retained US$3.7 million that, even on her account, was due to the claimant, for it exceeded any sums needed to fulfil the instructions the defendant alleged the claimant had given her. But the defendant did not even offer to give that money to the claimant until the application for summary judgment had been made. She had resigned from the claimant's employment in November 2009. Had the fakes not been discovered, it seems that she would have disappeared without ever accounting for the money. She had also gone on extended leave immediately after the Diamond Bracelet was sold. As Mr Mallin submitted, it is incredible that the arrangements alleged by the defendant would have been in place, and that she should have been left with a very large sum of money in her hands without showing any intention of accounting for it to the claimant.
105. Having entirely rejected the defendant's account as to the claimant's authority for her to deal with and dispose of the diamonds, I have no hesitation at all in concluding that the defendant wrongfully converted both the Blue Diamond and the Yellow Diamond. Every element of the tort of conversion is amply proved on the evidence the court has received. This part of the claim must therefore succeed.

Issue (ii): Is the defendant liable to the claimant for the conversion of the Diamond Bracelet?

Submissions for the claimant

106. The claimant's claim as it relates to the alleged conversion of the Diamond Bracelet is as set out in paragraphs 48 to 53 of her second witness statement, which I have quoted above. The essential elements of this part of the claimant's case are thus similar to those relating the conversion of the diamonds. At no stage did the defendant have her authority to take the Diamond Bracelet, or to deal with it, or to dispose of it. Having obtained the Diamond Bracelet, the defendant subsequently sold it without the claimant's authority or knowledge. This only came to light once the defendant's conversion of the diamonds was revealed. The inferences to be drawn from the events that occurred at the time when the Diamond Bracelet disappeared and afterwards are clear. For example, immediately after the sale of the Diamond Bracelet, the defendant took indefinite sick leave while still, even on her own evidence, being in possession of almost £600,000 of the claimant's money, for which she has given no proper account. The way in which the defendant went about the conversion of the diamonds displays a similar pattern of behaviour. The court can be confident in finding her liable for the conversion of the Diamond Bracelet as well.

The defendant's defence

107. The defendant has always denied dealing or disposing of the Diamond Bracelet without the claimant's authority to do so. She contends that in May or June 2008, the claimant told her she wanted to sell some things for her and no one must know about it. She showed the defendant two bracelets, one of which was the Diamond Bracelet (para. 75 of her witness statement). At this time, says the defendant, the claimant owed £820,000 under credit facilities in the defendant's name (para. 76 of her witness statement). She says the claimant told her to find any buyer she chose, to pay off the claimant's debts with the proceeds of sale and to use her – the defendant's – mother's name as the seller (para. 77 of her witness statement). The defendant says she went to Harrods to sell the bracelets, and was referred to Mr Solomon (para. 79). She says she went to Mr Solomon and gave a false name because she was nervous about the claimant's instruction to keep the transaction secret (para. 80). She says she went ahead with the transaction with Mr Solomon, telling him the bracelets belonged to her mother (para. 81 of her witness statement). Mr Solomon arranged the sale of the bracelets, including the Diamond Bracelet, for US$5.545 million (paras. 82 to 89). Although Mr Solomon has said he only sold the Diamond Bracelet and that the defendant kept the other for herself, the defendant denies this. In accordance with the claimant's instructions, she says, she paid out the money she received for the Diamond Bracelet and kept the surplus of £579,000, which she later used to offset the claimant's debts to her – though no details of this have been given (para. 97).

Discussion and conclusion on issue (ii)

108. The rationale of the defendant's defence to her alleged possession and disposal of the Diamond Bracelet is founded on the same basic contention as her defence to the claim for the diamonds: that the claimant behaved in a surreptitious way because she needed the money the sale would yield and wanted no one else to know. Here too, the defendant asserts, the claimant got her to open credit facilities at casinos in her – the defendant's name – to facilitate the claimant's gambling, that the liabilities incurred on those accounts were, in fact, the claimant's, that the claimant was unable to pay her debts under those facilities and had to sell, or chose to sell, the Diamond Bracelet to raise the cash she needed, and that she used the defendant as her agent in a clandestine deal with Mr Solomon.
109. I find this no more convincing a defence to the claim for the Diamond Bracelet than it is to the claim for the diamonds. More than that: it seems to me to be fanciful. I reject it.
110. Once again, in concluding on the evidence that the defendant has no credible defence to this part of the claim, I regard it as significant that the claimant came to give oral evidence at trial and the defendant did not. I prefer the account of the party I saw in the witness box to that of the party I did not. But that is not all. The claimant's case on the Diamond Bracelet – like her case on the diamonds – was supported by the evidence of others, including that of Mr Solomon; the defendant's defence was not.
111. On this part of the claim, as on the other, I accept the evidence given by and for the claimant as true, and, where it is at odds with the defendant's, I prefer it.
112. It is, as Mr Mallin said, inconceivable that the defendant could have wrongfully converted the diamonds as the claimant alleges but acted honestly and on the instructions of the claimant in disposing of the Diamond Bracelet. If the claimant's case on the diamonds is sound – and I have concluded that it is – it strongly implies that her case on the Diamond Bracelet is good as well. In my view it is.
113. As Mr Mallin submitted, the fact that in the tape-recorded conversation in Mr Ja'afar's car the defendant was not candid with him about having no knowledge of the Diamond Bracelet, only later to put forward the defence that she was told to sell it by the claimant and did, is telling. The defendant explained the circumstances in which she made – as she was later to claim – a false confession, in paragraphs 175 to 182 of her witness statement. She said that Mr Ja'afar told her what to say and that their dialogue was staged. It is to be noted that in what she said about this conversation in her evidence she made no mention of having denied any knowledge of the Diamond Bracelet. When one thinks about this for a moment, one can see the nonsense in the concept of Mr Ja'afar having prevailed on the defendant to deny knowledge of the Diamond Bracelet when – according to the defendant – the whole purpose of the conversation was to create a solid confession. Instead of accusing the defendant of stealing the Diamond Bracelet, or encouraging her to accept the blame for taking it, Mr Ja'afar simply asked her an open question – "But are you aware of anything? Honestly" – and accepted her answer – "Honestly I don't know anything about it".
114. Having considered all the evidence bearing on the defendant's account as to the claimant's authority for her to deal with and dispose of the Diamond Bracelet, I am satisfied that she did wrongfully convert it. Once more the facts are perfectly clear. The tort of conversion is plainly established. This part of the claim, therefore, must also succeed.

Issue (iii): If liability is established, what is the appropriate remedy?

115. The claimant seeks damages to the full value of the Diamond Bracelet as this has been sold without hope of recovery. It was sold for US$5.545 million. I understand that the claimant accepts that this is a fair value for the purposes of assessing damages. Unless there is any good reason to find otherwise, the claimant is entitled to be awarded that sum.
116. Had I found that the defendant was authorized to sell the Diamond Bracelet on the claimant's behalf, I would then have concluded that the defendant held the proceeds of the sale on trust for the benefit of the claimant and was liable to account to the claimant for those proceeds of sale. It is also clear that the account the defendant has so far given is inadequate as, even on her version of events, she was left with a surplus of about £579,000, and the fate of this sum has still not been properly explained.
117. As to the diamonds, the position is more complicated. In the first place, the value of the diamonds needs to be assessed. Secondly, as I have said, the claimant is seeking the recovery of the diamonds in the Swiss proceedings and is understandably anxious to ensure that no order made in this claim should prejudice those proceedings. Even if the claimant recovers the diamonds, I accept, in principle, that she is also entitled to damages for the losses incurred by her in pursuing them. Those damages too will need to be assessed. In these circumstances, having found in favour of the claimant, I think it will be necessary to make an order providing for assessment of the damages due to the claimant for the defendant's conversion of the diamonds, and to stay that assessment pending the determination of the Swiss proceedings.
118. Again, had I found that the defendant was authorized to sell the diamonds on the claimant's behalf, I would have concluded that she holds the proceeds of sale on trust for the benefit of the claimant and is liable to account to the claimant for those proceeds of sale. In the proceedings for summary judgment it became clear that a sum of at least US$3.7 million remained from the proceeds of the sale even after payment of the sums the defendant said she was authorized by the claimant to pay. In an open letter she offered to repay that money. In principle, therefore, there could be no reason for the court not to declare that the defendant holds this money on trust for the benefit of the claimant and must pay it to her.

Overall conclusion

119. The claim succeeds in full.
120. I shall therefore consider submissions on the precise form of the order the court should make at this stage.