Domestic & General Group Limited & Ors v Premier Protect Holdings Limited & Ors

Permission for contempt proceedings alleging knowingly false statements requires a strong prima facie case. The court must also be satisfied that proceedings are in the public interest, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.

The public-interest assessment includes the apparent strength of the evidence, the circumstances and significance of the statement, its actual use, and the maker’s understanding of its likely effect. Proportionality includes the strength of the case, the value of the underlying claim, likely costs and the court time required.

Permission may be refused where the evidence is too uncertain or the public interest has already been sufficiently served. It may be granted where alleged lies were intended to frustrate disclosure or supported a central issue in the proceedings.

The judgment gives reasons for decisions announced on 26 June 2025 concerning committal applications by Domestic & General against Abdelhak Akayour, Belal Ali and Mohamed Anoir Dhimi.

The applications arose from findings in the principal judgment, [2024] EWHC 2654 (KB), that the defendants and others had committed torts involving unlawful means and fraudulent misrepresentations. The disputed allegations concerned allegedly misleading or false statements in witness statements, affidavits, pleadings and other evidence.

The central questions were whether permission was required, whether there was a strong prima facie case, and whether the disputed allegations should proceed having regard to the public interest, proportionality and the overriding objective.

1. The court applied the principles stated in Tinkler v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564. A contempt application alleging a knowingly false statement should proceed only where there is a strong prima facie case. The court must also be satisfied that the public interest requires proceedings, that they are proportionate and that they accord with the overriding objective.

2. In assessing proportionality, relevant matters include the strength of the case, the value of the underlying claim, the likely costs to each side and the court time required. In assessing the public interest, relevant matters include the strength of the evidence, the circumstances and significance of the statement, the use made of it and the maker’s understanding of its likely effect. Care is required to avoid prejudicing the merits of the committal application.

3. Permission was not required for the allegation against Mr Akayour, but the court had power to stay it. The allegation depended on proving that he was legally a director of Personal Recruitment Outsourcing. The evidence left sufficient uncertainty that the claimants might not prove that allegation to the criminal standard. The application was therefore stayed, and the court was not satisfied that it was in the public interest for it to proceed.

4. Permission was required for the disputed allegations against Mr Ali under CPR 81.3(5)(b). There was a strong prima facie case concerning his statements about scripts and customer calls. The court refused permission concerning statements that Apex Assure had no customers, because those matters overlapped with an admitted contempt arising from failures concerning disclosure of customer information. Permission was granted for the statements about scripts and calls because there was a strong prima facie case that they were intended to frustrate the disclosure process, particularly important where the claimants depended on documents held by the defendants.

5. Permission was required for the allegations against Mr Dhimi. The allegedly false statements supported his and UK Service Plan’s case on a central issue: whether UK Service Plan had been established to continue businesses and operations previously conducted by Premier Protect or Apex Assure. The overlap between one disputed statement and a statement allegedly repeated in oral evidence also supported allowing the allegation to proceed. Permission was granted.