Commercial Bank of Dubai v Al Sari
[2024] EWCA Civ 643
12 Jun 2024
Share
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against an order committing two Emirati businessmen to prison for 24 months, for breach of their asset disclosure obligations under a worldwide freezing order. The defendants had failed to attend the hearing of the contempt application and later claimed that they were unaware of it. The judge rejected that argument and the Court of Appeal found he was right to do so.
The judgment contains useful clarification of certain procedural issues arising from the Court of Appeal judgments in Chiltern District Council v Keane [1985] 1 WLR 619, The Eastern Venture [1985] 1 All ER 923 and Frame Investments Ltd v Airh Ltd (26th May 1988, unreported); and the more recent judgment of Cockerill J in ICBC Standard Bank Plc v Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC [2017] EWHC 3135 (QB), all decided prior to the new CPR 81.
It is now clear that personal service is necessary not only for the contempt application, but for all documents served in contempt proceedings, unless alternative service is ordered specifically in those contempt proceedings. However, where it is clearly proved that the contemnor was in fact aware of the document, the court has jurisdiction under CPR 6.28 to dispense with service retrospectively.
The Court held that it was not open to the contemnors to dispute the validity of service, in circumstances where they had conceded the point below, and the respondents would have had an unanswerable case to dispense with service.
Anthony Peto KC and Andrew Trotter appeared for the successful respondents, the Commercial Bank of Dubai and its subsidiaries.
