Key Facts
- •Sharaz Ahmed, a barrister, appealed a six-week prison sentence and £9,000 fine for Landmark Legal LLP's breach of a court undertaking.
- •Landmark, where Ahmed was a designated member, had received and disbursed client funds in breach of an undertaking given to the court in 2019.
- •The committal application named only Landmark as the defendant, not Ahmed individually.
- •Ahmed was not given adequate notice or opportunity to defend himself against personal contempt charges.
- •The judge equated Landmark's admission of contempt with Ahmed's personal liability without sufficient evidence.
- •Ahmed's limited involvement in the firm's administration was argued in mitigation.
Legal Principles
A director or officer of a body corporate can be held liable for contempt of court for breaching a court order or undertaking if they knew of the order/undertaking and wilfully failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.
Tuvalu v Philatelic Distribution Corp. Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 926
A committal application against a company director must disclose a case establishing the director's responsibility for the breach, either through aiding and abetting or wilful failure to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance.
Sectorguard PLC v Dienne PLC [2009] EWHC 2693 (Ch)
An LLP's designated members are considered "directors or other officers" for the purpose of CPR Part 81 liability.
Olympic Council of Asia (No. 2) v Novans Jets [2023] EWHC 276 (Comm)
Due process requires that an individual facing punishment for contempt be made a party to the application, notified of the case against them, and given an opportunity to make representations.
Arlidge, Eady and Smith 5th ed at 14-2 note 7
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; Ahmed's conviction quashed.
Procedural irregularities in the committal proceedings violated Ahmed's right to a fair hearing. He was not named as a defendant, did not receive proper notice, and lacked a sufficient opportunity to defend himself.