OCM Maritime Nile LLC & Anor v Courage Shipping Co & Ors

Contempt by breach of a court order generally requires proof of notice of the order, conduct amounting to breach, and knowledge of the facts constituting that breach. Proof of deliberate disobedience is not ordinarily required, particularly for breach by omission.

A false statement contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was false, materially tended to interfere with the course of justice, and was made without honest belief in its truth, with knowledge of that tendency. Knowingly swearing a false affidavit is also a criminal contempt. Serious, continuing breaches involving dishonesty may justify concurrent custodial sentences and confiscation of assets as a coercive remedy.

The claimants applied to commit the fourth defendant for contempt arising from his failure to comply with an order requiring disclosure of worldwide assets exceeding €5,000 and from statements made in a later witness statement and affidavit.

The alleged contempts concerned failure to serve the disclosure affidavit in time, false statements about knowledge of the order, presence in Greece and the instruction of solicitors, incomplete asset disclosure, and knowingly swearing a false affidavit. The court also considered procedural compliance, sanction and confiscation of assets within the jurisdiction.

1. Procedural requirements. The contempt application complied with Civil Procedure Rules rr 81.4 and 81.5. Alternative service was valid, and the defendant had been served with the contempt documents.
2. Count 1. Applying the test in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL, the court was sure that the order had been served, that the defendant failed to serve the required affidavit by 29 July 2022, and that he knew the facts constituting the breach. The breach was therefore proved. Actual knowledge of the order and deliberate non-compliance were also established, although neither was ordinarily required.
3. Count 3. The court was sure that the affidavit omitted a Greek bank account containing more than €5,000 and an interest in a Swedish company worth more than €5,000. A further alleged Turkish-company interest was not proved. The affidavit nevertheless fell short of full disclosure, and Count 3 was established.
4. Count 2. Applying the test in AXA Insurance UK plc v Julie Rossiter, the court was sure that statements concerning the defendant’s knowledge of the order, presence in Greece and instruction of AMZ were false, made without honest belief, and intended and likely to interfere materially with the course of justice. The asset-disclosure allegations were not established to the same extent. Count 2 was therefore proved, but not in full.
5. Count 4. The court was not sure that the defendant knew, when swearing the affidavit, that the asset statements were false. Count 4 was dismissed.
6. Sanction. Counts 1 to 3 justified a custodial sentence. Count 2 was treated as the lead offence and attracted 18 months’ imprisonment. Nine-month sentences for Counts 1 and 3 ran concurrently. A warrant for arrest was issued, subject to the defendant’s right to apply under CPR r 81.10.
7. Confiscation. Confiscation of any assets within the jurisdiction which were or might be identified as belonging to the defendant was appropriate as a temporary coercive remedy, particularly because he appeared to be outside the jurisdiction.

First-instance contempt proceedings in the Commercial Court. The judgment records a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) without permission.