Hassan Khan & Company v Mrs Iman Said Al-Rawas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Morris |
| Judgment Date | 30 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3229 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Claim Nos: QB-2013-001681 |
| Year | 2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2021] EWHC 3229 (QB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Morris
Claim Nos: QB-2013-001681
QB-2013-001685
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Sir Geoffrey Cox QC and Ben Walker-Nolan (instructed by The Khan Partnership LLP) for the Claimants
The Defendants were not present and were not represented
Hearing dates: 30 November 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HONOURBLE Mr Justice Morris
Introduction
On 27 September 2021 I found that each of the First and Second Defendants (“Mrs Al-Rawas” and “Mr Al-Shanfari” respectively) was in contempt of court for breach of court orders and for making false statements in oral evidence. I further found that Mr Al-Shanfari was in contempt of court for making false statements verified by statement of truth in a written witness statement. By order dated 13 October 2021 (“the Order”) I adjourned sentence and penalties until today. There were 14 charges of contempt. Mr Al-Shanfari is in contempt in respect of 12 of those charges. Mrs Al-Rawas is in contempt in respect of the two remaining charges.
The Liability Judgment and the findings of contempt
The history of the proceedings and the detail of the 14 charges of contempt are set out in my judgment of 27 September 2021 (“the Liability Judgment”). In this judgment, I use the same terms and definitions as in the Liability Judgment. The contempts comprised breach of court orders, namely failure to disclose information and/or to provide documents as required by the Part 71 Orders; making false statements on oath at the Part 71 Hearing and making false statements in a subsequent witness statement, the January Statement: see Liability Judgment, paragraphs 7 to 9, 148 and Appendix 2.
In accordance with CPR 81.8(6), and for the reasons set out fully in the Liability Judgment, the Court's findings on the allegations of contempt are as follows.
In respect of Mr Al-Shanfari, the following charges of contempt are proved to the criminal standard and he is guilty of contempt of court in respect of those charges (which are more fully set out in the Schedule of Allegations of Contempt (“the Schedule”)).
Banking
Charge 1
Mr Al-Shanfari was in breach of paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8, of Schedule 2 of the Part 71 Orders in failing to produce at court at the Hearing banking and financial documents including statements for his accounts with National Bank of Oman, with Bank of Beirut, and with Bank Dhofar; and any record of financial transactions undertaken including Western Union transfers.
Charge 2
Mr Al-Shanfari gave false evidence on oath at the Part 71 Hearing by making false statements, namely that his accounts with National Bank of Oman and with Bank of Beirut and with Bank Dhofar were not bank accounts and that he had no bank, building society or other accounts.
Charge 3
Mr Al-Shanfari knowingly made false statements in the January Statement, namely that he did not have a bank account or a credit card.
Mortgage
Charge 4
Mr Al-Shanfari was in breach of paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.7 and paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 12 and 15 of Schedule 2 of the Part 71 Orders in failing to produce at court at the Hearing documents concerning the mortgage on his main residence in Oman, No. 15 Boshar Multistory building, including application documents in respect of the mortgage, the mortgage agreement, the facilities agreement, mortgage accounts and statements showing charges and interest and transactional records showing payments or repayments of mortgage funds or of interest.
Zimbabwe
Charge 5
Mr Al-Shanfari was in breach of paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.6 and paragraphs 9, 12, 13 and 15 of Schedule 2 of the Part 71 Orders in failing to produce at court at the Hearing documents concerning property in Zimbabwe in which he held a beneficial interest, namely 57 Folyjon Crescent, Harare Zimbabwe, including the deeds of trust through which he held a beneficial interest, documents relating to the ownership of the property by Bourhill Investments (Private) Limited and Graphic Investments (Private) Limited, documents regarding his position as director of those companies and valuations of the property.
Charge 6
Mr Al-Shanfari gave false evidence on oath at the Part 71 Hearing by making four false statements, namely that: he had no business interests in Zimbabwe since 2008; no judgments in his favour; he had not filed court papers in Zimbabwe in an action against Mr Kazi and that Kamal Khalfan had won that judgment; and 57 Folyjon was in negative equity and he would probably have to pay to sell it. However, sub-paragraphs c and d of Charge 6 as set out in the Schedule are not proved.
Charge 7
Mr Al-Shanfari knowingly made false statements in the January Statement, namely that his assertion that 57 Folyjon was in negative equity was nothing but the truth, that he did not own control or have a shareholding in any entity that owned 57 Folyjon and that he had no interest in the judgment debt against Mr Kazi.
Companies
Charge 8
Mr Al-Shanfari was in breach of paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 1.8. 1.11 to 1.13 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Part 71 Orders in failing to produce at court at the Hearing any documents concerning his shareholdings, official positions or interests in, and failed to produce documents relating to, one UK company, one French company and 14 Omani companies, as identified in the Charge.
Charge 10
Mr Al-Shanfari gave false evidence on oath at the Part 71 Hearing by making false statements namely that he was not, and could not be, a director or shareholder of any company and that he did not hold any interests in any company or operate businesses through any company.
Charge 12
Mr Al-Shanfari knowingly made false statements in the January Statement, namely that, at the time, he was not a director of any company and had no shares or investments.
Schedule 1 companies
Charge 13
Mr Al-Shanfari was in breach of paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, and Schedule 1 of the Part 71 Orders in failing to produce at court at the Hearing any information or document concerning his beneficial interests in or control over Oasis Maritime Services LLC and Trans Gulf Energy FZE. The charge in respect of Oasis Energy LLC is not proved.
Charge 14
Mr Al-Shanfari gave false evidence on oath at the Part 71 Hearing by making false statements, namely that he had no interest in or control over Oasis Maritime Services LLC and Trans Gulf Energy FZE. The charge in respect of Oasis Energy LLC is not proved.
In respect of Mrs Al-Rawas, the following charges of contempt are proved to the criminal standard and she is guilty of contempt of court in respect of those charges (which are more fully set out in the Schedule).
Charge 9
Mrs Al-Rawas was in breach of paragraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.6, 1.8, 1.11 to 1.13 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 of the Part 71 Orders in failing to produce at court at the Hearing any document concerning her shareholdings, official positions or interest in, and failed to produce documents relating to, four Omani companies, as identified in the Charge.
Charge 11
Mrs Al-Rawas gave false evidence on oath at the Part 71 Hearing by making false statements namely that she had no interests in any companies other than two specified companies she had identified at the Hearing.
Thus, in the case of Mr Al-Shanfari, of the 12 Charges proven, five concern breaches of the Part 71 Orders in respect of his failure to provide the documents and information required; four concern interference with the due administration of justice, arising out of Mr Al-Shanfari's false statements under oath in oral evidence during the Part 71 Hearing; and three concern false written statements made by Mr Al-Shanfari in the January Statement, repeating and amplifying aspects of his lies under oath at the Part 71 Hearing. In the case of Mrs Al-Rawas, of the two Charges proven, one concerns breaches of the Part 71 Orders in respect of her failure to provide the documents and information required and the other charge concerns interference with the due administration of justice, arising out of Mrs. Al-Rawas's false statements under oath in oral evidence during the Part 71 Hearing.
Service of the Liability Judgment
On the day of handing down, the Liability Judgment was sent by emails to the Defendants' Omani lawyers and, under cover of a letter, to Oliver Mishcon, counsel, who had previously been involved on the Defendants' behalf (as explained in paragraph 57 of the Liability Judgment). Mr Mishcon subsequently acknowledged receipt of the Liability Judgment, whilst at the same time declining to accept service of it. Despite being so requested, Mr Mishcon did not provide confirmation that the Liability Judgment had been provided to Mr Al-Shanfari.
Events following the Liability Judgment
In the Liability Judgment I invited submissions from both parties as to the approach for sentencing and next procedural steps.
The Claimant made written submissions dated 4 October 2021. On 6 October 2021 Oliver Mishcon wrote to the Court, informing it about expected changes to the Defendants' representation, indicating that a law firm was to be engaged to provide him with instructions, that the process could be time-consuming and that substantive submissions almost certainly would be made to the Court on the Defendants' behalf “in the light of the recent judgment”.
The Order
Following receipt of submissions, the Order fixed today's hearing for sentence and directed the Defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mrs Iman Said Abdul Al-Rawas v Hassan Khan & Company (A Firm)
...rather than to participate in them in any meaningful fashion”. 9 In his second contempt judgment which addressed sentencing ( [2021] EWHC 3229 (QB)), Morris J sentenced the first appellant to 24 months imprisonment and the second appellant to 15 months imprisonment. They have not returned ......