RIYADH NASSER ALOKAILI & Anor v BALJINDER CHOHAN & Ors

On an application to purge contempt, the alleged continuing breach must be proved by the party asserting it to the criminal standard. The court may assess circumstantial evidence cumulatively and draw an inference where it is compelling and inconsistent with any other conclusion. A disclosure order requiring details of assets and interests is construed according to its wording and may extend beyond specifically itemised documents. Partial compliance does not prevent a finding of continuing contempt where a material beneficial interest has deliberately been concealed. The court has a broad discretion to consider all the circumstances and may reduce a custodial sentence to reflect substantial compliance and personal circumstances. A continuing breach may justify refusing suspension, although mitigation may justify a reduction.

The Second Defendant had previously been committed to prison for contempt after deliberately failing to comply with disclosure orders made in aid of enforcement of substantial judgments. The sentence was initially 32 weeks, comprising punitive and coercive elements, with commencement deferred to allow further disclosure.

At the subsequent hearing, treated as an application under CPR Part 81.10, the issue was whether the Defendant had purged his contempt or remained in continuing breach. The Claimants alleged that he had concealed a beneficial interest in Croydon Tower and had continued to mislead the court. The central questions were the burden and standard of proof, the scope of the disclosure order, compliance with its individual requirements, and the appropriate consequential sentence.

1. Application and burden of proof. The hearing was properly treated as an application to purge contempt under CPR Part 81. The Claimants bore the burden of proving, to the criminal standard, that the Second Defendant remained in contempt. The court could draw factual inferences from circumstantial evidence, provided the inference of continuing contempt was compelling and the essential facts were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Construction of the disclosure order. The obligation to disclose all assets and interests was not confined to the specific categories listed in the order. The words “or otherwise” had a wide reach, and the relevant paragraph could properly be construed by reference to the language used in a standard freezing injunction. This did not convert the order into a freezing injunction or require a general explanation of all investor funds.
3. Compliance. The cumulative evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the Second Defendant had a substantial beneficial interest in Croydon Tower. He had deliberately failed to disclose that interest and had failed to provide the associated information required by paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had beneficial interests in the other companies receiving the relevant loans, nor did it establish breaches of the remaining disclosure requirements.
4. Sentence and disposal. The Second Defendant had made substantial disclosure, but had not fully complied with the order or made an honest and reasonable attempt to do so. He therefore remained in continuing contempt. Taking account of the concealed interest, his credibility, his substantial disclosure and limited evidence concerning his personal circumstances, the court reduced the sentence from 32 weeks to 24 weeks. The reduction comprised four weeks from the coercive element and four weeks from the punitive element. The order was varied accordingly. The Defendant was entitled to unconditional release after serving half the sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003.
5. Alternative observation. Had compliance or an honest and reasonable attempt been established, the court would in principle have been prepared to suspend the entire original sentence subject to continuing compliance and co-operation, subject to further argument on conditions.

First-instance decision. The judgment records the earlier committal decision in [2022] EWHC 1126 (Ch), but this was a later hearing concerning compliance and purging contempt rather than an appeal.