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

NCN: [2025] EWHC 2339 (KB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING’S BENCH DIVISION) Royal Courts of Justice Strand London Ref. QB-2021-000136 Before THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LAVENDER

IN THE MATTER OF (1) DOMESTIC & GENERAL GROUP LIMITED (2) DOMESTIC & GENERAL INSURANCE PLC (3) DOMESTIC & GENERAL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimants/Applicants) - v - (1) PREMIER PROTECT HOLDINGS LIMITED (In Liquidation) (2) ABDELHAK AKAYOUR (3) APEX ASSURE LIMITED (In Liquidation) (4) BELAL ALI (5) HOME PROTECT 365 LIMITED (6) PREMIER PROTECT 365 SL (7) HICHAM ALAMI (8) RACHID EL HADDOUCHI (9) UK SERVICE PLAN LIMITED (10) MOHAMED ANOIR DHIMI (11) MOHAMMED ZAKRIA KHAN (Defendants/Respondents) NICHOLAS GOODFELLOW appeared on behalf of the Claimants/Applicants JOSHUA HITCHENS appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant/Respondent HELEN PUGH appeared on behalf of the Fourth Defendant/Respondent MICHAEL UBEROI appeared on behalf of the Tenth Defendant/Respondent

APPROVED JUDGMENT 26th JUNE 2025 ______ WARNING: Reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. Transcribed from the official recording by eScribers Ludgate House, 107-111 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AB Tel: 0330 100 5223 | Email: uk.transcripts@escribers.net | uk.escribers.net MR JUSTICE LAVENDER: 1. 2.

3. I am simply going to announce my decision now and then let you have some reasons in writing later. My decision is that I refuse permission in relation to Mr Akayour. I grant permission in relation to Mr Ali in part, namely insofar as he said that “Apex Assure did not make any outbound calls itself” and that “Apex Assure did not create or provide training materials or scripts.” But in part I refuse permission, insofar as he said that “Apex Assure did not transact any deals and/or didn’t have any customers.” 4. I grant permission in relation to Mr Dhimi. (Following further submissions) MR JUSTICE LAVENDER: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. I am invited to recuse myself from hearing these committal applications. I have been shown a number of helpful authorities, including Otkritie International Investment Management Limited & Ors v Urumov [2014] EWCA Civ 1315, a case which discusses the decision of Andrew Smith J in Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company & Anor v Al Refai & Ors [2014] EWHC 1055 (Comm). That was a case in which Andrew Smith J decided that he would recuse himself from hearing the committal application and what the Court of Appeal said about that was as follows [29]: “It is thus clear that in Dar’s case the judge felt that the informed observer could not have the necessary confidence in the proceedings when the judge had already considered the essential evidence that would be deployed on the committal application and had come to the conclusion that the witnesses giving it were lying to him. A recusal application is a very personal matter for the judge to decide and this court will seldom interfere with this delicate jurisdiction. The overall feeling I have from reading Andrew Smith J’s judgment is that he himself felt uncomfortable about reconsidering essentially the same evidence on the very same issue which he would have to decide in the contempt application.” In this case it strikes me that, were I to hear the committal application, I would be reconsidering essentially the same evidence

on the very same issues, save only with a different standard of proof. It is also the case that I have already considered the essential evidence that will be deployed on the committal application and I have come to the conclusion that at least one of the witnesses giving it, namely Mr Dhimi, who gave evidence before me, was lying to me. In those circumstances, I consider that it is appropriate to recuse myself from the committal application, but not, of course, from any future proceedings in the substantive case. --------------- Transcribed from the official recording by eScribers 2