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

In contempt proceedings, the applicant must prove every essential ingredient beyond reasonable doubt. Where the case depends on circumstantial evidence, contempt may be found only if the inference of guilt is the only reasonable inference consistent with the evidence. A false statement verified by a statement of truth requires proof of falsity, absence of honest belief, material interference or likely interference with justice, and knowledge of that risk. Carelessness or failure to consider truth is insufficient; knowledge or recklessness as to the absence of honest belief is required.

A company director who knows of an order binding the company must take reasonable steps to secure compliance. The same facts may support civil contempt for failure to do so and criminal contempt for knowing participation in the breach. Both respondents were found guilty.

The claimants brought contempt applications against Mr Belal Ali and Mr Mohamed Anoir Dhimi after an underlying liability action concerning the marketing and sale of domestic-appliance warranty products. That action was tried before Lavender J, who handed down judgment in October 2024. Permission for the present proceedings was granted in June 2025, and the contempt issues were determined afresh after Lavender J recused himself.

The allegations against Mr Ali concerned false statements about Apex Assure’s sales activity and scripts and alleged breaches of the 21 January 2021 injunction. The allegations against Mr Dhimi concerned statements presenting UK Service Plan Ltd as independent of the earlier operation. The central issues were falsity, honest belief, interference with the administration of justice, director responsibility for a company’s breach of an order, and the use of circumstantial and hearsay evidence.

The applications were granted. Mr Ali and Mr Dhimi were found guilty of contempt of court. Consequential orders and sanction were reserved.

1. Prior judgment and evidence. The earlier Liability Judgment was admissible as procedural and factual context, but its findings were not evidence of the truth of those facts in the contempt proceedings. The court had to reach its own conclusions on the evidence before it. The disclosure gateway in section 241A of the Enterprise Act 2002 applied because consumer rights were a necessary element of the underlying claims, and extended to the related contempt proceedings. The court rejected the confidentiality, data protection, self-incrimination and procedural objections. Hearsay was admissible under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, although caution was required.
2. Proof and false statements. Under rule 81.4(o) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, each essential ingredient had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court applied the approach in Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 C.L.R. 573 (HCA) and Daltel Europe Ltd v Makki [2005] EWHC 749 (Ch): where the case depended on inference, the inference of contempt had to be the only reasonable inference. Contempt for a false statement under rule 32.14 required proof of falsity, absence of honest belief, material interference or likely interference with justice, and knowledge of that risk. Consistently with Norman v Adler [2023] EWCA Civ 785, carelessness, negligence or failure to apply one’s mind to truth was insufficient.
3. Civil and criminal contempt. The distinction depended on substance, not form. Civil contempt concerned disobedience to an order; criminal contempt concerned serious interference, or threatened interference, with the administration of justice. A director aware of an order binding his company had to take reasonable steps to secure compliance. The court held that the pleaded facts gave Mr Ali proper notice of both a criminal case based on knowing participation and a civil case based on failure to secure compliance.
4. Findings. The cumulative documentary, electronic, physical and witness evidence established continuity between the businesses, an active Apex sales operation, the use of scripts, Mr Ali’s control and knowledge, and continuation of the prohibited conduct after the injunction. Mr Ali knowingly permitted or facilitated the continuing breach and failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance. Mr Dhimi knowingly presented a false account of UKSP’s independence and its relationships with the earlier operation. The allegations against both respondents were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

This was a first-instance contempt determination. The judgment records that the underlying liability action was tried before Lavender J and judgment was handed down in October 2024. Permission for the present contempt proceedings was granted in June 2025 after Lavender J recused himself. No appeal from the present judgment is stated.