Islamic Investment Co of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd v Symphony Gems & Ors

A failure to comply with an order for judgment-debtor disclosure supports committal only where the breach is proved to the criminal standard and was a wilful disobedience of the order. A later questionnaire or adjournment order does not supersede an earlier disclosure order unless it varies or replaces it. Delayed compliance must be assessed separately from the original breach. For funding disclosure, the contemnor must understand what particulars are required to avoid sanction.

The claimant sought two committal orders against the second defendant, a judgment debtor. The first concerned failure to produce documents required under CPR Part 71. The second concerned alleged failure to provide full particulars of the funding of his legal expenses.

The court considered whether the earlier disclosure obligation remained in force, whether the breach was contumacious, and whether the information eventually supplied about funding was sufficient.

1. The disclosure obligation in paragraph 2 of Master Miller’s order of 16 January 2007 remained in force. Later orders requiring questionnaire responses did not vary or replace it. The court therefore had jurisdiction under CPR rule 71.8(2).
2. The defendant’s failure to produce the documents was proved to the criminal standard and was contumacious. He had wilfully disobeyed the order. Subsequent disclosure was insufficient, and a suspended committal order was appropriate, subject to further submissions on the sanction and conditions.
3. The failure to provide the funding affidavit by the extended deadline was also wilful. However, the affidavit eventually provided was an adequate response to the order, assuming its contents were true. The issue was compliance, not reliability. A further contempt finding on that issue would therefore be largely redundant.
4. The scope of a disclosure obligation must be sufficiently clear to enable the person in contempt to understand what must be supplied to avoid sanction.

The judgment records earlier procedural decisions in the same litigation, including Court of Appeal proceedings concerning the defendant’s attendance and conditional permission to appeal. No appeal from the present decision is stated.