The Family (Holdings) Limited & Ors v Oussama Ammar & Anor

In contempt proceedings, the application itself must state the nature of the alleged contempt and briefly summarise the facts said to constitute it. The applicant cannot cure a material omission by relying on evidence or background. Late amendment or procedural relief should be refused where it would undermine the heightened procedural fairness required in quasi-criminal proceedings. A respondent’s affidavit evidence cannot be used until deployed by the respondent; once deployed, reliance may be permitted if fair. A broadly worded freezing injunction can capture an interest in income or assets personally appropriated from a company. It does not automatically capture every company asset. A prohibition on preventing payment into protected accounts may be construed narrowly where ambiguity would prejudice the contemnor.

This was a first-instance trial of the Claimants’ contempt application against Mr Oussama Ammar. The underlying commercial proceedings concerned alleged misappropriation and related transactions. Freezing and disclosure orders were made in 2023 and 2024. The allegations concerned asset dissipation, failures to provide information and dishonest statements. Several grounds were abandoned or narrowed during the hearing. The central issues were compliance with Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 81.4(2)(h), the use of Mr Ammar’s third affirmation after deployment, the scope of the freezing injunction, and whether the remaining allegations were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The contempt application succeeded only in part. Sentence was adjourned.

1. Pleading and procedural fairness. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 81.4(2)(h), the application itself had to state the facts said to constitute contempt. Grounds 8 and most of Ground 12 lacked sufficient particulars. Ground 7 was confined to the alleged non-disclosure of profit shares from Better with Ouss and Mastermind Ikigai. References to affidavits and witness statements could not cure the omissions. Applying Harmsworth v Harmsworth [1987] 1 WLR 1676 and Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2024] EWCA Civ 268, the court refused late amendment, rectification or relief because Mr Ammar had no fair opportunity to respond after the case had closed.
2. Third affirmation. Following In re B (Contempt of Court: Affidavit Evidence) [1996] 1 WLR 627, the Claimants could not use the third affirmation before Mr Ammar deployed it. Once he deployed it, the court permitted reliance on the Residual Allegations, having regard to the Overriding Objective, prior notice and the opportunity to answer the case.
3. Freezing injunction. The definition of the Respondent’s assets extended to an interest held legally, beneficially or otherwise. Personal appropriation of assets held through Daedalium could therefore bring them within the injunction. The court distinguished the circumstances discussed in FM Capital Partners Ltd v Marino [2018] EWHC 2889 (Comm), Group Seven Ltd v Allied Investment Corporation Limited [2014] 1 WLR 735 and Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2015] 1 WLR 291.
4. Grounds 1 and 11. Derivative income was within the Respondent’s assets. Mr Ammar breached the April 2024 order by diverting income from Travel with Ouss and Better Call Ouss to meet his expenses and by paying €2,630.86 for a luxury hotel stay. Ordinary living expenses were assessed objectively in the light of his circumstances. The alleged creation of new businesses was not proved. Paragraph 4.1 of the December 2023 order was construed narrowly as covering pecuniary transactions and diversion of funds, so Ground 11 failed.
5. Remaining grounds. Grounds 5 and 6 were proved by the failure to give advance notice of substantial withdrawals and to provide bank statements. Ground 7 was proved only for Better with Ouss and Mastermind Ikigai. Under CPR 32.14, applying AXA v Rossitor [2013] EWHC 3805, the statements in paragraphs 150 and 151 of the third affirmation were false, dishonest and materially interfered with the administration of justice. The allegations concerning the Japan trip and paragraph 176 were not proved.
6. Mr Ammar was found in contempt in respect of Grounds 1, 5, 6, 7 and 12 to that limited extent. The application was adjourned for a public sentencing hearing, with all sentencing options remaining open.

This was a first-instance determination in proceedings commenced on 6 July 2022. The judgment records liability judgment on 12 July 2024 and judgment for £6,488,497.92 on 3 March 2025, together with interim freezing and disclosure orders made in 2023 and 2024. No appellate decision is stated. An appeal lies to the Court of Appeal without permission within 21 days after sentence.