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

Contempt proceedings may proceed in a defendant’s absence where the defendant has been properly served, had sufficient notice and a fair opportunity to participate, but deliberately declined to do so. The court must be sure of the elements of contempt to the criminal standard: knowledge of the order, conduct amounting to breach, and knowledge of the facts constituting that breach.

Deliberate and continuing breach of the disclosure obligations accompanying a worldwide freezing order is ordinarily among the most serious forms of contempt. Sentencing requires assessment of culpability and harm, consideration of whether a fine suffices, imposition of the shortest proportionate custodial term, and allowance for mitigation. A defendant’s foreign residence does not prevent committal.

The claimants applied to commit the tenth defendant, Mr Hamad Saif Hamad Abdalla Almheiri, for contempt of court. The alleged contempt consisted of his wholesale failure to comply with asset-disclosure provisions in a worldwide freezing order made by Foxton J.

Mr Almheiri did not appear and was not represented. The court therefore considered whether the application should proceed in his absence, whether the elements of contempt were proved, and what sentence was appropriate. The central issues were the adequacy of alternative service, the effect of an alleged UAE criminal complaint, and the seriousness and sentencing consequences of persistent non-compliance.

1. Proceeding in absence. The court proceeded in Mr Almheiri’s absence. He had been properly served under Foxton J’s order permitting alternative service, had long-standing notice of the application and hearing, and had deliberately chosen not to engage. No good reason or realistic prospect of attendance following an adjournment was shown. Proceeding was consistent with fairness, the overriding objective and the public interest in enforcing court orders (paras [2]–[12]).
2. Elements of contempt. To establish contempt for breach of an order, the court had to be sure that the defendant knew the order’s terms, acted or failed to act in breach of it, and knew the facts constituting the breach. The criminal standard of proof applied. Those elements were established by the defendant’s knowledge of the freezing order and disclosure obligations, his complete failure to provide disclosure, and his awareness of that failure (paras [13]–[18]).
3. Sentencing framework. The court applied the approach in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 392, as endorsed in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15. It assessed culpability and harm, whether a fine would suffice, the shortest custodial term reflecting the seriousness of the contempt, and mitigating circumstances including remorse, early admission and impact on third parties (para [20]).
4. The breach was deliberate, persistent and contumacious, caused continuing prejudice by preventing effective policing of the freezing order, and formed part of a wider obstructive pattern. There were no mitigating features. The defendant’s age and foreign residence did not justify leniency. Committal remained meaningful despite the practical limits on enforcement abroad (paras [23]–[28]).
5. The appropriate sentence was two years’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum. Six months would be considered for remission upon full and proper compliance with the disclosure obligations. Unconditional release after half the sentence remained available under Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 258 (paras [29]–[31]).