Listen To The Article
We are a little over two weeks away from mourning the third anniversary of the August 4, 2020 explosion that hit the Port of Beirut. The investigation in Beirut remains at a standstill due to political pressure and militia threats. However, legal proceedings have been initiated abroad. In London, a civil trial was presented before the High Court of Justice against the company Savaro, which imported the shipment of ammonium nitrate stored at the port of Beirut and was responsible for the scale of the explosion. Attorney Nasri Diab, who led this trial with a group of Lebanese lawyers, discusses the preparations, details and outcomes of this trial that resulted in the condemnation of Savaro, marking the first judgment against one of the entities responsible for the catastrophic explosion.
On Monday, June 12, 2023, a lengthy process initiated thirty months earlier by the Beirut Bar Association’s Prosecution Office came to an end in London. The process lasted from January 2021 to June 2023. During this period, pro bono lawyers at the Prosecution Office devoted all of their resources to serving the victims of the largest non-nuclear explosion in history. Their efforts were focused on a civil trial presented before the High Court of Justice in London against the English company Savaro Ltd.
Savaro Ltd. is a real English company, not a fictitious one. It was established in 2006, and a few months after the explosion at the port of Beirut, its shareholders attempted to liquidate its assets in January 2021. Prior to that, the company had appointed a lawyer in Lebanon shortly after the unloading of the ammonium nitrate cargo at the Port of Beirut in 2013. It had filed judicial requests and administrative demands in Beirut. Once the trial against it was initiated in London, the company hired an English law firm to defend it before the English court. Savaro Ltd. actively participated in the proceedings, presented conclusions and attended hearings.
Throughout the proceedings in London, the shareholders of Savaro Ltd. transferred the ownership of their shares to a Ukrainian national residing in Ukraine, as documented in the company’s records with the English Commercial Registry. These facts contradict the notion of a “fictitious” company or a company that had no connection to the explosion at the Port of Beirut, or even a company that failed to defend itself in court, as some have claimed. Therefore, Savaro Ltd. is indeed a legitimate company, and the trial in London was conducted in accordance with the principles of due process (not “in absentia”).
The Final Judgment against Savaro
In June 2023, the High Court of Justice in London delivered a final judgment, condemning Savaro to provide compensation to the victims and their claimants. The court determined the amount of this compensation after rendering an initial judgment in February 2023, establishing the civil liability of the company.
As I emphasized to the English judge, Master Eastman, at the end of the hearing of June 12, 2023, which I attended in the venerable building located on Strand, home to several Royal Courts of Justice, the essential goal is not only to obtain financial compensation for moral damages that are inherently irreparable. The real aim is to uncover the truth, albeit partially, to achieve justice, even if it may be incomplete, and to give hope to the families of the victims that justice will prevail. I assured the judge that his first judgment in February 2023, which established Savaro’s civil liability toward the victims, was sufficient in itself to reassure the victims that the Beirut Port explosion case would not be consigned to oblivion.
Pursuing the Involved Individuals
Immediately after the August 4, 2020 port explosion, Melhem Khalaf, who served as the president of the Beirut Bar Association at the time, mobilized all available resources of the Bar to help the victims. After extensive work, volunteer lawyers were able to compile nearly 1,200 case files, with the assistance of volunteer doctors and land experts who prepared medical and property damage reports.
In October 2020, a complaint was filed with the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation. Once the number of volunteer lawyers stabilized and they expressed their commitment to pursue the Beirut Port explosion case to the end, the Bar Association established the “Prosecution Office,” presided over by the president of the bar (Khalaf at the time, and currently Nader Gaspard, who fully trusted the office and offered it his unwavering support). The Office includes a fixed number of lawyers.
The Prosecution Office has maintained a steadfast philosophy whereby having faith in the Lebanese justice system is a priority, and the reconstruction of the state requires justice to be served through national courts. Concurrently, however, the Office recognized the need to pursue all individuals involved in the Beirut Port explosion before foreign courts with international judicial competence based on the nationality of the victims, the location of the headquarters of legal entities, the residence of the individuals concerned or other relevant factors. For this purpose, they contacted French, Belgian, American, and other lawyers and obtained legal studies and consultations, which helped determine the available options.
In January 2021, journalist Firas Hatoum aired a report on New TV, revealing various aspects of the Beirut Port explosion case, including the involvement of Savaro Ltd., whose name appeared in the dossier of the ammonium nitrate cargo that arrived at the port of Beirut in 2013 aboard the M/V Rhosus and exploded seven years later in 2020.
It is important to note that during the years following the unloading of the cargo at the port of Beirut, Savaro Ltd. acted as the owner of this cargo. It appointed a Lebanese lawyer, filed legal requests and corresponded with Lebanese authorities, thus establishing its involvement in the case.
Opposition to the Liquidation of Savaro Ltd.
Legal research into this company revealed that its shareholders had applied for its liquidation in January 2021, shortly after the port explosion. This raised questions about the intention to erase traces that could identify those responsible for the explosion in question. Why attempt to liquidate the company fifteen years after its establishment in 2006, immediately after the explosion? Concurrently, it was found that two English parliamentarians, Dame Margaret Hodge from the House of Commons and Lord John Mann from the House of Lords, had requested the British authorities to investigate Savaro Ltd., accusing it of not declaring the identities of its Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBO). This violation of regulations is serious as it conceals the identities of the actual owners of the company, given that its apparent shareholders and directors, both individuals and legal entities, are professionals in the management of shares and companies on behalf of others, and are therefore different from the actual owners.
It is worth mentioning that there are several other companies besides the English company that bear the name Savaro and are registered in different countries, such as Scotland, Ukraine, British Virgin Islands (BVI), etc. This indicates that the defending company is part of a significant group of companies, and it would be naive to believe that its presence in the port explosion is insignificant.
The president of the bar sent letters in January 2021 to the two English MPs, asking for their support in the Bar Association’s quest for truth, and another letter to the English Commercial Registry, requesting the suspension of the company’s liquidation. The Commercial Registry acceded to this request and decided on a six-month suspension. This six-month period was later renewed for equal periods following repeated requests by the Prosecution Office (through the English law firm) and other lawyers.
Choosing English Jurisdictions to Prosecute Savaro Ltd.
In order to definitively halt the liquidation procedure of Savaro Ltd. and bring it before the courts as one of the co-responsible parties, among many others, for the port explosion, it was necessary to initiate legal proceedings against it. For this purpose, the president of the bar contacted Camille Abousleiman, a partner at Dechert LLP in London, and asked if he was willing to accompany the Prosecution Office in its action against Savaro Ltd. on a pro bono basis. He immediately accepted and committed his own resources and those of his firm to serving this humanitarian cause.
Between February and August 2021, the Prosecution Office and the English law firm worked on assembling a comprehensive and detailed dossier to be presented before the English court. The first step was to analyze the international jurisdiction of the English courts based on their conflict of jurisdiction rules and, if doable, determine the applicable law based on conflict of laws rules. After in-depth studies, which required dozens of hours of research and discussions, they confirmed the English courts’ jurisdiction to take on this case. This placed the burden of work on the Prosecution Office since the English court would apply its own civil procedure rules, while the substance of the case would be exclusively decided under Lebanese law. This included the grounds and conditions of Savaro’s civil liability, the applicable modes of evidence for this liability, the assessment of the victims’ damages, the determination of the claimants’ heirs, the calculation of the damages and the distinction between share ownership and the economic ownership of companies, among various other legal questions. All of these matters were solely discussed under Lebanese law (Code of Obligations and Contracts, Commercial Code, Lebanese jurisprudence and doctrine).
The Lebanese lawyers at the Prosecution Office spent thousands of hours on this work, conducting studies, research, preparing legal consultations and reports, translating documents into English (with the help of volunteer translators), holding discussions with the English lawyers, attending meetings, providing explanations, analyzing documents and evidence, preparing for hearings and analyzing and commenting on the conclusions presented by the defending company, as well as the preliminary decisions and final judgments rendered by the English court.
Selecting the Claimant Victims in London
To bring the trial to London, they had to choose among the victims, given the impossibility of presenting the trial on behalf of thousands of them and their heirs due to the significant time and financial burden required to prepare the individual case file for each victim. Additionally, at the time of presenting the trial, its outcome was uncertain. The main objective was not to obtain compensation but rather to prevent Savaro Ltd. from evading justice by going into liquidation. The objective was to establish its liability as one of the parties involved in this case.
Therefore, in August 2021, the trial was presented on behalf of certain victims and their heirs represented by the lawyers Khalaf (President of the bar), Nasri Diab and Choucri Haddad. This followed six months of preparation starting in January 2021. The defending company was represented by an English law firm that presented its defense, attended court hearings and actively took part in the proceedings.
Legal Action in London is Civil, Not Criminal
It is essential to emphasize that the legal action brought against Savaro Ltd. in London was a civil action, not a criminal one. The technical purpose was not to obtain criminal penalties against the company and its owners but to establish its civil liability and force it to compensate the claimants for the physical, material and moral damages they suffered. The English court refrained from conduct ing investigations as civil trials are centered around the parties involved, who bear the responsibility of providing evidence. Consequently, the trial in London was limited to the scope determined by the parties and the facts they presented and proved. For example, when they convinced the English judge to order the defending company to disclose the identity of its Ultimate Beneficial Owners (UBO) in a decision rendered in June 2022, and the company failed to comply, the UBO’s identity was not revealed, and the court imposed a fine on the company. Thus, the English civil trial should not be expected to provide more information than what was presented during the trial.
The proceedings in London lasted from August 2021 to June 2023 and went through two stages: the first stage ended with the judgment in February 2023, establishing Savaro Ltd.’s civil liability, and the second stage ended with the second judgment in June 2023, awarding compensation to the claimant victims and determining the quantum of these compensations. With the pronouncement of the final judgment, the trial came to a close, and any reference to the “participation” of other victims in this trial was no longer applicable.
In Beirut, Khalaf and lawyers Nasri Diab, Choucri Haddad, Nagib Hage-Chahine, Tamam Sahili, Moussa Khoury, Assad Najem, and Fadi Moghaizel worked on this case in both stages and in various capacities. All members of the Prosecution Office participated in discussions and the formulation of the case’s strategy. In London, the case was followed by lawyers from Dechert LLP, led by Abousleiman, with the support of three barristers, all of whom offered their services for this humanitarian cause.
The Final Judgment Rendered in London
The judgment handed down in June 2023 by the English High Court of Justice, ordering the payment of compensation to the victims, represents a significant victory in itself, irrespective of its execution. This judgment is the first definitive judicial decision identifying one of the parties involved in the Port explosion and condemning them to pay compensation.
Naturally, this judgment is subject to enforcement in all countries worldwide, considering the applicable exequatur rules. The aim is to locate assets that can be seized, followed by the application of enforcement measures. It should be reiterated that the condemned company, Savaro, is an “effective” entity that is part of a group of companies.
The assertion that “the company’s liability is limited to the amount of its paid-up capital, which is one thousand British Pounds” (sic) demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the author regarding accounting and law. As shown in Savaro’s balance sheet published in the English Companies House, the share capital is indeed one thousand British Pounds and has not even been paid up (“Called up share capital not paid”). Does this infer that the company is absolved of any liability (since, according to the author of this assertion, the company’s liability is limited to one thousand British Pounds, provided that this capital is paid up)? The answer to this question is, of course, negative. This assertion violates fundamental principles of corporate law since there is no relationship between the share capital and the ceiling of the company’s liability. It is especially important to note that the concept of mandatory minimum share capital does not exist in Anglo-Saxon law, and it does not imply that all Anglo-Saxon companies escape liability toward third parties.
Clearly, Savaro holds significant importance for its owners. As demonstrated earlier, they appointed a lawyer in Lebanon to represent them before the Lebanese courts and local administrative authorities after the cargo was unloaded at the port. They subsequently hired an English law firm to represent them in the London trial (and the firm actively participated in the proceedings). During the trial, they transferred their shares to a Ukrainian national residing in Ukraine (is it normal for someone to buy shares in a company that is a defendant in the port explosion trial?!). This is yet another attempt to evade liability.
Solidarity Among Victims and Sharing of Compensation
The Prosecution Office of the Beirut Bar Association provided the victims and Lebanon with the first definitive judgment establishing the civil liability of one of the parties involved in the port explosion. If the victims and their heirs, for whom the English judgment was rendered, receive some or all of the compensation for non-medical moral damages, equity and justice would dictate that they share these compensations with the other victims of the port explosion not represented in this trial and assisted by the Prosecution Office. Solidarity demands this sharing, resulting in each victim represented by the Prosecution Office receiving a symbolic amount from one of the parties responsible for their distress.
The Prosecution Office and I have not worked intensively and continuously for thirty months, nor have we incurred expenses and gathered volunteers in Lebanon and the UK (lawyers, experts, translators, etc.) solely for the benefit of a few claimants in the London trial. We have worked pro bono for all the victims of the port explosion and, more broadly, for the Lebanese people in search of the truth. The catastrophe affected all the victims, and we only consider it fair and just for the compensations to be distributed to all victims. We are convinced that the victims and their heirs we represented in the London trial will spontaneously share the compensations for their moral damages with the other victims. This is an elementary moral duty, especially as the claimants in the London trial did not incur any fees, expenses, costs or court fees.
Dr. Nasri Antoine Diab is a law professor and lawyer admitted to the Bars of Beirut and Paris. He is a founding member of the Prosecution Office of the Beirut Bar Association.
