Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors. v Abdalla Juma Majid Al Sarl & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 1484 (Comm)
Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors v Abdalla Juma Majid Al Sari & Ors
4 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2624 (Comm)
High Court
A bank sued some people, and a court ordered them to reveal their money. They didn't, so the court found them guilty of ignoring the court order and said they had to face consequences.
Key Facts
- •The Commercial Bank of Dubai (C1) sought sanctions for contempt against the First to Sixth Defendants for non-compliance with asset disclosure orders.
- •The Defendants failed to comply with worldwide freezing orders and continuation orders issued in February and March 2022.
- •The orders required disclosure of assets exceeding £50,000, bank accounts, and details of any asset disposals.
- •The Third Defendant, Mohamed Al Sari, never engaged with the proceedings.
- •The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Defendants (CRS Defendants) were initially represented by Charles Russell Speechlys (CRS) but ceased representation in February 2023.
- •The Defendants' attempts to avoid compliance included seeking relief in the Sharjah court and providing inadequate excuses.
- •The Judge considered whether it was appropriate to proceed in the Defendants' absence.
Legal Principles
The court has discretion to proceed in the absence of defendants, but this must be exercised with care.
Authorities cited by Claimant's counsel
Asset disclosure is crucial for policing compliance with freezing orders.
Judge's statement
In contempt applications, the applicant must prove contempt to a criminal standard.
Judge's statement
Service of court orders must be proven to be sure.
Judge's statement
A contempt application is usually served personally unless otherwise directed by the court.
CPR Rule 81.5(1)
Outcomes
The court proceeded in the absence of the First to Sixth Defendants.
Defendants were served, no reason for non-appearance was given, and an adjournment was unlikely to secure their attendance. Proceeding without them was in accordance with the overriding objective of expeditiousness and upholding court orders.
The First to Sixth Defendants were found in contempt of court.
They failed to comply with asset disclosure obligations in a timely manner and provided inadequate excuses. Their actions demonstrated a deliberate attempt to avoid disclosing assets.