Asia Islamic Trade Finance Fund Ltd v Drum Risk Management Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 3590 (Comm) (04 December 2015)

Asia Islamic Trade Finance Fund Ltd v Drum Risk Management Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 3590 (Comm) (04 December 2015)

The second, third, and fourth defendants deliberately and wilfully failed to comply with the disclosure obligations under the freezing order, and are each in contempt of court. The contempts are proved to the criminal standard. The court is justified in proceeding in their absence due to their deliberate non-engagement and proper service of proceedings.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3590 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Asia Islamic Trade Finance Fund Ltd; First Defendant: Drum Risk Management Limited; Second Defendant: Arex LLP; Third Defendant: ASD Enerji Madencilik Petrol Ürünleri Sanayi ve Dis Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; Fourth Defendant: Atilla Dogan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Adjournment for Sentencing
Outcome
Declarations of contempt made against the second, third, and fourth defendants; sentencing adjourned; bench warrant to be issued for attendance at sentencing hearing.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Asset Tracing, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Asset Tracing Enforcement of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asia Islamic Trade Finance Fund Ltd

Claimant

Drum Risk Management Limited

First Defendant

Arex LLP

Second Defendant

ASD Enerji Madencilik Petrol Ürünleri Sanayi ve Dis Ticaret Anonim Sirketi

Third Defendant

Atilla Dogan

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Adjournment for Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second, third, and fourth defendants are in contempt of court for failing to comply with disclosure obligations under a freezing order.
  2. 2 Whether the court should proceed in the absence of the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the contempts are sufficiently serious to warrant committal and the imposition of penalties.

Ratio Decidendi

The second, third, and fourth defendants deliberately and wilfully failed to comply with the disclosure obligations under the freezing order, and are each in contempt of court. The contempts are proved to the criminal standard. The court is justified in proceeding in their absence due to their deliberate non-engagement and proper service of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Declarations of contempt made against the second, third, and fourth defendants; sentencing adjourned; bench warrant to be issued for attendance at sentencing hearing.

Orders

  • Declarations that Arex LLP, ASD Enerji Madencilik Petrol Ürünleri Sanayi ve Dis Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, and Atilla Dogan are in contempt of court for breaches of the disclosure obligations under the freezing order.
  • Adjournment of sentencing to a later date.