Al Saud v Ayas & Ors

An adjournment may be refused where the applicant gives no valid reason for non-attendance and no sufficient explanation for failing to send a representative. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a first-instance discretion concerning the level of a contempt fine unless the discretion was exercised on a wrong principle. A remedy for continuing contempt should ordinarily be pursued at first instance.

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal as of right by the third defendant, permission applications by the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants, and the claimant’s cross-appeal. The proceedings arose from contempt orders made by Toulson J on 28 March 2002. The first defendant had been fined £150,000 for continuing contempt, following an earlier £250,000 fine and a daily rolling fine. The defendants did not attend or have representation, and sought an adjournment through a communication from Dr Asso. The central issues were whether the hearing should be adjourned and whether the fine had been wrongly assessed.

Disposition

1. The court refused the defendants’ application for an adjournment. The communication requesting an adjournment gave no valid reason why the appellants and applicants were not ready to proceed. Lack of funds did not justify the application, particularly since no representative attended to explain or pursue it.

2. In consequence, the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants’ applications for permission to appeal were refused, and the third defendant’s appeal was dismissed. The order of Toulson J dated 28 March 2002 was affirmed.

3. The claimant cross-appealed against the additional fine of £150,000 imposed on the first defendant. The court stated that it could interfere with Toulson J’s discretion only if satisfied that the discretion had been exercised on a wrong principle. It was not so satisfied. The cross-appeal was therefore dismissed.

4. The court added that any remedy sought for the defendants’ continuing conduct should be pursued at first instance. It allowed an extension of time for the respondent’s notice and skeleton argument, admitted the specified additional evidence, and ordered the defendants to pay the claimant’s costs on an indemnity basis.

5. Under CPR Part 6.8(1), service of the order and additional evidence was permitted through the defendants’ solicitor and at the specified properties.

Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Laws agreed with Lord Phillips MR.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2002] EWCA Civ 988. The third defendant’s appeal was dismissed, the order of Toulson J was affirmed, the other defendants’ permission applications were refused, and the claimant’s cross-appeal was dismissed.
• Queen’s Bench Division: Toulson J made orders in contempt proceedings on 28 March 2002, including a £150,000 fine against the first defendant for continuing contempt.