Commercial Bank of Dubai PSC & Ors v Abdalla Juma Majid Al Sari & Ors

The court may hear a contempt application in a respondent’s absence where, having considered service, notice, reasons for non-attendance, likely attendance after adjournment, prejudice, and the overriding objective, it is appropriate to proceed. Asset disclosure is an important part of a freezing order because it enables compliance to be policed. Breach must be proved by the applicant to the criminal standard, and the relevant order and committal application must have been properly served. Foreign confidentiality obligations, asset attachment, or a claimed lack of beneficial ownership do not ordinarily justify non-compliance. The proper course, where necessary, is to seek variation or amendment of the order.

The Commercial Bank of Dubai applied for contempt sanctions against the first to sixth defendants for failing to comply with asset-disclosure and document-delivery obligations in worldwide freezing and continuation orders made in related enforcement proceedings. Those defendants did not attend or appear at the hearing. The bank relied on service of the orders and application, prolonged non-compliance, and inadequate explanations, including reliance on UAE confidentiality law and attachment orders. The central issues were whether the court should proceed in their absence and whether the alleged breaches were proved to the criminal standard.

1. The court proceeded in the absence of the first to sixth defendants. The defendants had been served with the relevant orders and the contempt application and had sufficient notice. No satisfactory reason for non-attendance was advanced. Their conduct justified an inference that they knew of, or were indifferent to, the consequences of the hearing proceeding without them. An adjournment was unlikely to secure attendance. Although absence caused disadvantage, that disadvantage was outweighed by the prejudice and delay that a further adjournment would cause, and proceeding was consistent with the overriding objective.
2. Asset disclosure was an important feature of the freezing orders because it was the means by which compliance could be monitored. The bank bore the burden of proving contempt, and the allegations had to be established so that the court was sure of their truth. The orders had been served, and the committal application had also been served in accordance with the applicable service provisions.
3. The first to sixth defendants failed to comply with obligations to disclose assets, bank accounts, controlled companies, disposals, the location of asset documents, and documents held by or for third parties. The delay was deliberate and constituted serious contempt. The court agreed with Calver J’s description of the earlier non-compliance as serious contempt.
4. The asserted reasons for non-compliance were rejected. An attached asset was not thereby valueless. Assertions that individuals had no relevant interest beyond managerial status did not excuse disclosure, particularly where the evidence indicated control and the corporate defendants themselves were subject to the orders. UAE confidentiality rules did not justify non-compliance. If a genuine conflict existed, the proper course was to seek variation or amendment of the orders.
5. The court found the first to sixth defendants in contempt in the respects identified, including failures to disclose assets and accounts, related-party or undervalue disposals, and asset documents. No separate penalty or consequential sanction is stated in the supplied judgment.