Jujhar Singh Sahota & Anor v Dorota Kazimiera Newman

A contempt hearing may proceed in the defendant’s absence where the defendant was properly served, had sufficient notice, gave no reason for non-attendance, appears indifferent to the consequences, and an adjournment is unlikely to secure attendance. The court must balance the defendant’s disadvantage against prejudice to the applicant and the forensic process, having regard to the overriding objective.

Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by establishing knowledge of the order, conduct involving breach, and knowledge of the facts making the conduct a breach. Deliberate and continuing failure to provide information required by a freezing order may justify imprisonment. A sentence may combine punishment for past breaches with an incentive for future compliance.

The claimants applied to commit the defendant for contempt arising from her failure to comply with provisions of a freezing order requiring disclosure of assets in England and Wales exceeding £1,000 and a confirmatory affidavit.

The defendant had not engaged with the proceedings, did not attend the original hearing, and remained absent after an adjournment and the issue of a bench warrant. The court first considered whether the hearing should proceed in her absence, then whether contempt was proved and what sanction was appropriate.

1. The hearing could fairly proceed in the defendant’s absence. The court applied the relevant factors identified in Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Limited [2016] EWHC (Ch), also identified in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam). The defendant had been served, had ample notice, gave no explanation, had shown sustained indifference to the proceedings, and was unlikely to attend after a further adjournment. Her disadvantage was limited because the allegations were straightforward. Delay would prejudice enforcement of the claimants’ judgment, and the forensic process could fairly continue.
2. The court applied the three requirements stated in Mortgage Finance 4 plc and others v Rizwan Hussain [2022] 4 All E.R. 170: knowledge of the relevant order; conduct involving breach; and knowledge of the facts making the conduct a breach. Each requirement was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The defendant knew of the freezing order and failed to provide asset information within 48 hours or the required affidavit within ten working days. Her continuing non-compliance was deliberate and seriously prejudiced enforcement. In assessing sanction, the court applied the matters identified in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15.
4. A fine was inadequate. The court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment. Six months represented punishment for breaches already committed and six months was intended to encourage future compliance. The sentence was not suspended, but the defendant could apply to purge her contempt and seek release and discharge.