Louise Mary Brittain & Anor v Usman Khalid Raja

Contempt based on a false statement verified by a statement of truth requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was false, that the maker had no honest belief in its truth, and that it was intended or known to be likely to interfere materially with the administration of justice.

Contempt for breach of a mandatory disclosure order requires a clear and unambiguous order, ordinarily bearing a penal notice and personally served, and a deliberate breach. The defendant need not appreciate that the conduct breached the order. The court may draw compelling inferences from established facts and appropriate adverse inferences from a failure to call material witnesses.

Umbrella Care Limited applied to commit Usman Khalid Raja for contempt in proceedings arising from his position as a de facto director. The allegations concerned false evidence about the death of his wife’s biological mother, non-disclosure of an Isle of Man bank account, and non-disclosure of assets in Pakistan.

The respondent maintained that the deceased woman was his wife’s Razai mother and denied deliberately misleading the court. He also asserted that the Pakistani accounts belonged to a relative. The central issues were whether the statements were knowingly false and likely to interfere with justice, and whether the alleged disclosure breaches were deliberate.

1. Contempt 1. The court found that the respondent’s references to his wife’s mother, parents and mother-in-law would objectively be understood as references to her biological mother. That woman was alive. The explanation that the statements concerned a Razai mother was raised late, was inconsistent with the documents and oral evidence, and was not credible.
2. The respondent also falsely denied that his brother-in-law had sent an email stating that the biological mother was alive. His evidence was dishonest. The court drew adverse inferences from the failure to call his wife and brother-in-law, applying the approach in Ahuja Investments Ltd v Victorygame Ltd. Independently of those inferences, the documentary and oral evidence established the case.
3. The false statements were relied on in an application concerning the retention of passports. They were therefore likely to interfere with the administration of justice. The court was sure, to the criminal standard, that the respondent made the statements without an honest belief in their truth and intended, or knew they were likely, to interfere with justice.
4. Contempt 2. The respondent deliberately failed to disclose an Isle of Man Barclays account. He had access to its details before making his first affidavit of means and failed to correct the non-disclosure in his later affidavit. The breach was deliberate within the meaning of the principles summarised in Absolute Living Developments Ltd (in liquidation) v DS7 Ltd & Or.
5. Contempt 3. Two Pakistani accounts were the respondent’s accounts, despite the asserted ownership of a relative, and had been deliberately omitted from the disclosure affidavits. A third account was also found to be his, but breach of the orders was not proved because the evidence did not establish that its balance exceeded the £1,000 disclosure threshold at the relevant dates.
6. The court nevertheless found all three categorised contempt allegations proved.

Not an appeal. The judgment itself does not state any prior appellate decision.