Background
The claimants are members of an investment group co-founded by Oussama Ammar. They alleged that Ammar exploited his senior management positions to misappropriate investor funds, procure purchases of shares from Fabuleo Limited at inflated prices, and secretly acquire shares in a target company. After the defendants failed to comply with an unless order, the claimants obtained judgment, ultimately quantified at £6,488,497.92, together with an order requiring Fabuleo to deliver 400,000 shares in Unison.
During the litigation, the court imposed a worldwide freezing injunction and related disclosure requirements. The claimants later sought Ammar’s committal for alleged dissipation of assets, failures to provide information and bank statements, and dishonest statements in evidence. Ammar, who lived in Dubai, did not attend the contempt trial despite an order requiring his personal attendance, although he was represented after receiving a short adjournment to prepare.
The Court’s Holding
HHJ Halliwell, sitting as a High Court judge, found Ammar in contempt on parts of Grounds 1, 5, 6, 7, and 12. The proved conduct included misapplying income from “Travel with Ouss” and “Better Call Ouss,” expenditure on a two-day stay at the Grand Hotel du Cap-Ferrat, failing to give advance notice of withdrawals exceeding £5,000 from Daedalium LLC’s Mercury Bank account, failing to provide required bank statements, and failing to disclose his profit shares from “Better with Ouss” and “Mastermind Ikigai.”
The court also found beyond reasonable doubt that Ammar knowingly made false statements in paragraphs 150 and 151 of his third affirmation about being the only person with a debit card linked to his Solo Bank account and using the account for his living expenses. Those statements materially interfered with the administration of justice because third parties used the cards and the statements concealed expenditure potentially outside the freezing order’s permitted-living-expenses exception.
The court rejected Ground 11 and the remaining false-statement allegations. It also held that Ground 8 and substantial portions of Grounds 7 and 12 were fundamentally defective because the contempt application did not provide the factual summary required by CPR 81.4(2)(h). The court struck out the defective portions and refused amendment or rectification. Sentencing was adjourned, with all options—including a significant custodial sentence—left open.
Key Takeaways
- Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, including the respondent’s knowledge of the facts that made the conduct a breach.
- A contempt application must itself give a brief factual summary of each alleged contempt; references to separate evidence cannot cure a complete failure to plead the essential facts.
- Knowingly false evidence about control and use of frozen assets can constitute contempt when it materially obstructs enforcement of a freezing injunction.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates both the reach of worldwide freezing orders and the procedural safeguards governing committal proceedings. Income routed through businesses, payments made directly for a respondent’s benefit, and third-party use of the respondent’s bank cards may all be relevant when determining whether frozen assets have been dissipated or disclosure obligations breached.
At the same time, even serious apparent misconduct cannot overcome defective pleading. Applicants seeking committal must state the material facts in the contempt application with enough precision to permit a fair defence, while respondents who knowingly conceal asset dealings face potentially substantial custodial consequences.