Say Chong Lim & Ors v Chee Kong Ong (a bankrupt)
[2024] EWHC 373 (Ch)
Shahraab Ahmad v Karim Ouajjou & Anor
29 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 1096 (Comm)
High Court
A couple ignored court orders freezing their assets, selling a house and exceeding spending limits. The judge sent them to jail because breaking court orders is very serious, even if they said sorry afterwards. The judge considered that their reasons for not attending court were insufficient to excuse their actions.
Key Facts
- •Shahrab Ahmad (Claimant) brought contempt applications against Karim Ouajjou (D1) and Yasmin Al Sahoud Perez (D2) for breaching worldwide freezing orders (WFOs).
- •D1 and D2 admitted the breaches.
- •The WFOs prohibited disposing of assets up to €45.8 million, specifically mentioning the Madrid property jointly owned by D1 and D2.
- •Breaches included D1 transferring his half-interest in the Madrid property to D2, D2 accepting the transfer and subsequently selling the property, and D2 exceeding the allowed living expenses.
- •D1 and D2 did not attend the sentencing hearing, residing abroad in Portugal.
- •The court considered the weight to be given to D1 and D2's witness statements in mitigation, given their absence.
Legal Principles
Powers of the court in contempt proceedings.
CPR 81.9
Sentencing approach in contempt cases, analogous to criminal cases, considering culpability and harm.
Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 at [44], Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392
Principles for sentencing in committal proceedings, including the desirability of keeping first-time offenders out of prison.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Khan [2022] EWHC 45 (Ch)
Breach of a court order is always serious because it undermines the administration of justice.
JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWCA Civ 1241 at [51]
Outcomes
D1 sentenced to nine months' immediate imprisonment for transferring his interest in the Madrid property to D2.
The court found the breach serious, deliberate or reckless, and not mitigated by D1's absence and unconvincing explanation.
D2 sentenced to nine months' immediate imprisonment for selling the Madrid property and six months' imprisonment (concurrent) for accepting the transfer of D1's interest.
The court found these breaches serious and deliberate, despite D2's claim of relying on Spanish legal advice; mitigation was limited due to lack of early admission and absence from the hearing.
D2 sentenced to three months' immediate imprisonment (concurrent) for exceeding living expense limits.
While the overspend was relatively small, the court found the breach deliberate and not sufficiently mitigated by D2's explanation.
D1's counterclaim not debarred.
The court found that debarring the counterclaim would be disproportionate and unjust.
Similar Cases
SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
Mark Cooper v Ignite International Brands (UK) Limited & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 807
ADM International SARL v Grain House International SA
[2023] EWHC 135 (Comm)
nChain Holding AG (formerly HEH Holding AG) v Christen Ager-Hanssen
[2024] EWHC 1230 (Comm)