SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
Nebahat Evyap Işbilen v Selman Turk & Ors
5 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 505 (Ch)
High Court
A court found a man in trouble for not telling the truth about where some money went. Even though he said he didn't understand, the court showed he knew what he was doing and was just trying to hide things. The court looked closely at the money and what he said, and decided he was being dishonest and broke court rules.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Turk was held in contempt of court for failing to comply with disclosure obligations in a freezing order.
- •The freezing order was related to a claim by Mrs. Işbilen against Mr. Turk for misappropriation of her assets.
- •Mr. Turk's main defense was that he did not understand the extent of his disclosure obligations.
- •Mr. Turk was diagnosed with ADHD, which was considered during the proceedings.
- •The court considered various money flows and Mr. Turk's disclosure (or lack thereof) regarding them.
- •The court examined several grounds of contempt, focusing on the information Mr. Turk knew or should have known, and whether he disclosed it adequately.
Legal Principles
The onus of proving contempt lies on the applicant, with the standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt.
Daltel Europe Ltd v Makki [2005] EWHC 749 (Ch) at 30
The court can consider the "broad canvas" of evidence, but each contempt must be proved individually.
Gulf Azov Shipping Co Ltd v Idis [2001] EWCA Civ 21 at para 18
To establish contempt, it must be shown that the respondent knew the order's terms, breached it, and knew the facts making their conduct a breach.
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 at para 150
A penal notice must clearly warn the respondent of the consequences of disobedience.
Iberian Trust Ltd v Founders Trust and Investment Company Limited [1932] 2 KB 87 at 98
Court orders are to be restrictively construed due to the penal consequences of breach.
Pan Petroleum v Yanka Folawiyo [2017] EWCA Civ 1525 at paragraph 41
Outcomes
No contempt found for Ground 1 (Bethlehem moneys).
The court found that Mr. Turk's disclosure, while not fulsome, was sufficient to comply with the order's limited scope regarding investments.
Contempt found for Ground 2 (Alphabet transfers).
Mr. Turk failed to disclose the purpose of transfers and presented false invoices; the court found his actions to be contumacious.
Contempt found for Ground 3 (AET Global transfers).
Mr. Turk failed to disclose the purpose of transfers and presented false invoices, demonstrating a deliberate breach.
Contempt found for Ground 4 (SGP transfers).
Mr. Turk failed to disclose relevant payments, despite having access to the necessary information; his actions were deemed over-casual.
Partial contempt found for Ground 8 (Sphera investments).
Mr. Turk failed to disclose the application of moneys in acquiring Sphera shares and their value, but the court limited the scope of the breach to this.
Contempt found for Ground 9 (Softco).
Mr. Turk failed to disclose the purpose of the payment and the identity of those who could provide further information, presenting a false invoice.
Similar Cases
John Charles Jones v Roderic Alexander Innes Hamilton
[2023] EWHC 1216 (Ch)
Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Edward Wojakovski
[2023] EWHC 3119 (Ch)
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v John Forster Emmott
[2024] EWHC 2781 (Comm)
Hadcliffe Properties Ltd v The Rind Foundation & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2587 (Ch)