The Litigation team at Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co (WLG) has secured a High Court judgment of over $1 million for American Express in a dispute related to a large debt incurred by a high-net-worth individual.

The defendant, a Saudi Arabian national, had denied making most of the disputed purchases of jewellery amounting to nearly $700,000 on a prestigious Centurion account. He alleged that his signature had been forged and that the jewellery merchants in Riyadh were involved in a scheme to defraud him.

Partner Greg Standing and senior associate Katie Molloy advised American Express, and instructed Ali Tabari of St Philips Commercial in the Royal Courts of Justice.

Greg Standing said: "We are pleased to have brought this complex dispute to a successful end for American Express."

Various complications arose over the course of the dispute and shortly before trial the key witnesses of fact for American Express refused to travel from Saudi Arabia to give evidence, citing threats from the defendant.

The lead witness alleged that he had been threatened by the defendant, while there was a suggestion that the other witness had disclaimed ever having made any statement in support of the claim. Alternative arrangements were made for the witnesses to give evidence in Saudi Arabia by video-link, but they did not attend.

Ali Tabari added: "This was a case where the swift response of my instructing solicitors was key to the court remaining receptive to the evidence from the missing witnesses. Hearsay notices were served as soon as practical, together with a witness statement from the main fee-earner putting all the relevant circumstances before the court.

"The solicitors also responded quickly to an opportunistic application to adjourn, and that evidence was central to persuading the court to continue with the trial."

Navigating a late application to adjourn the trial on grounds of serious ill-health by the defendant (which was ultimately refused), the matter proceeded and American Express was awarded judgment of over $1m plus indemnity costs, with the judgment of Mrs Justice Whipple commending the team's 'clear and helpful submissions'.