Tesco Stores Limited v Shahin Majeed Mouradi

Contempt of court allegations must be proved to the criminal standard. The burden rests throughout on the applicant, and a disputed fact must be established so that the court is sure of it. Findings made in related civil proceedings on the balance of probabilities do not bind the contempt court, which must assess the evidence afresh. Knowingly permitting another person to impersonate a litigant at a remote hearing, and making or adopting deliberately false sworn evidence in the litigation, are capable of constituting contempt. The court may find some alleged facts proved while declining to be sure of others.

Tesco brought contempt proceedings against Mr Mouradi following a staged road traffic collision and a fraudulent compensation claim against Tesco. The proceedings concerned admitted and disputed lies made in a statutory declaration, witness statements and hearings, together with allegations that Mr Mouradi knowingly collaborated with another person who impersonated him during a remote county court hearing.

A related counterclaim had been decided against Mr Mouradi in the Central London County Court. That court had made findings on the balance of probabilities, but the contempt proceedings required a fresh determination under the criminal standard. The principal issues were whether Mr Mouradi had knowledge of and involvement in planning the collision, and whether he had collaborated in the impersonation at the earlier hearing.

1. Standard of proof. The contempt allegations had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Tesco bore the burden of proof, and the court could make no disputed finding unless satisfied of it to the criminal standard.
2. Fresh fact-finding. Findings made by HHJ Baucher in the related civil counterclaim did not bind the contempt court because they had been made on the balance of probabilities in an undefended civil claim. The court therefore approached the disputed issues entirely afresh.
3. Impersonation. The evidence established, so that the court was sure, that Mr Mouradi and Abdul collaborated before, during and after the hearing before DJ Ellery. Mr Mouradi knowingly permitted Abdul to attend remotely and impersonate him for the purpose of advancing a knowingly false account concerning the claim and Bond Turner. The conduct was capable of amounting to contempt in the face of the court or interference with the due administration of justice.
4. Staged collision. The court was sure that Mr Mouradi knew enough about the proposed staged collision in advance to go along with it and had collaborated to some extent with Mr Tawfeek in its commissioning and planning. It was not, however, possible to determine the precise extent of his involvement.
5. Presence in the vehicle. Although the court was sure that a male passenger had been in the car and considered it probable that the passenger was Mr Mouradi, it was not sure of that fact. The identification exercise had significant weaknesses, and the relevant evidence from Ms Nusseibeh was partly hearsay and potentially affected by pressure or suggestion.
6. Decision. Mr Mouradi fell to be sentenced for his admitted contempts, his sworn denials concerning prior knowledge and complicity in the staged collision, and his conduct in permitting Abdul to impersonate him and later giving contrary sworn evidence. No sentence or final sentencing order is stated in the supplied judgment text.