Yuzu Hair And Beauty Ltd & Anor v Selvathiraviam

A court may proceed with a committal application in a respondent’s absence where the respondent has been properly served, had sufficient notice and opportunity to participate, and the asserted reason for non-attendance is not accepted. The court must weigh the respondent’s disadvantage against prejudice to the applicant and the overriding objective, while respecting the right to a fair hearing under Article 6. An order remains binding unless and until it is successfully challenged and set aside. Restoration of a dissolved company retrospectively treats it as having continued in existence, preserving the validity and enforceability of proceedings and orders made before restoration.

The claimants applied to commit the defendant for deliberate and continuing breaches of disclosure obligations in a freezing order. The order had been made before the first claimant company was restored to the register. The defendant repeatedly sought adjournments on medical grounds and failed to provide the medical evidence required by earlier orders. He sought a further adjournment on the day of the remote hearing, asserting that an ambulance had been called.

The court considered whether to proceed in his absence, whether the requirements for committal had been met, and whether the company’s prior dissolution affected the enforceability of the freezing order.

1. Adjournment and absence. The application to adjourn was refused. The defendant had been served, had ample notice, had been repeatedly warned of the need for medical evidence, and had opportunities to obtain legal assistance and participate remotely. His unsupported assertions were not accepted in light of his prior conduct and non-compliance. Applying the checklist derived from Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam), an adjournment was unlikely to secure attendance and would cause further prejudice to the claimants. Proceeding in his absence was consistent with Article 6 and the overriding objective.
2. Requirements for committal. The freezing order had been properly served, personal service had properly been dispensed with, and it contained a penal notice. The committal application complied with the procedural requirements. The defendant had deliberately failed to disclose information about his assets and to file the required affidavit. The breaches were established beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Dissolution and restoration. Section 1032 of the Companies Act 2006 deemed the company to have continued in existence as if it had not been dissolved. That retrospectively cured the difficulty arising from the company’s status when the freezing order was made. Independently, the order remained an order of the High Court and was enforceable unless successfully challenged and set aside, following the principle illustrated by Grafton Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97.
4. The defendant was found guilty of the disclosure breaches. The sentencing stage was adjourned for 28 days to allow a final opportunity for compliance and mitigation.