Daltel Europe Ltd & Ors v Makki & Ors [2005] EWHC 749 (Ch) (03 May 2005)

Daltel Europe Ltd & Ors v Makki & Ors [2005] EWHC 749 (Ch) (03 May 2005)

The court held that the claimants must prove each alleged contempt beyond reasonable doubt. Deliberate non-disclosure or dissipation of assets in breach of search and freezing orders, or making false statements verified by statement of truth, constitutes contempt. The court found that a wilful intention to disobey is not required, only deliberate conduct with knowledge of the order. Hearsay evidence is admissible in civil contempt but its weight is for the court to assess. The burden does not shift to the respondent except where an express proviso in the order applies.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 749 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Daltel Europe Limited (In Liquidation); Claimant: James Earp, Robert Harry Pick and Nicholas Stewart Wood (The Liquidators of Daltel Europe Limited); Claimant: Pacifica Limited (In Liquidation); Claimant: James Earp, Robert Harry Pick and Nicholas Stewart Wood (The Liquidators of Pacifica Limited Europe Limited); Claimant: Globenet Limited (In Liquidation); Claimant: James Earp and Nicholas Stewart Wood (The Liquidators of Globenet (UK) Limited); Defendant: Hassan Ali Makki; Defendant: Weybridge Management LLC; Defendant: Daltel USA LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court (civil and Criminal Contempt) / Judgment After Hearing of Committal Applications
Outcome
Application for committal considered; findings on contempt made (specific findings not included in provided text).
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Freezing Orders, Search Orders, False Statements Verified by Statement of Truth, Burden and Standard of Proof in Contempt, Hearsay Evidence in Contempt Proceedings
Insolvency Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Freezing Orders Search Orders False Statements Verified by Statement of Truth Burden and Standard of Proof in Contempt +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daltel Europe Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

James Earp, Robert Harry Pick and Nicholas Stewart Wood (The Liquidators of Daltel Europe Limited)

Claimant

Pacifica Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

James Earp, Robert Harry Pick and Nicholas Stewart Wood (The Liquidators of Pacifica Limited Europe Limited)

Claimant

Globenet Limited (In Liquidation)

Claimant

James Earp and Nicholas Stewart Wood (The Liquidators of Globenet (UK) Limited)

Claimant

Hassan Ali Makki

Defendant

Weybridge Management LLC

Defendant

Daltel USA LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court (civil and Criminal Contempt) / Judgment After Hearing of Committal Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hassan Ali Makki committed contempt of court by breaching search and freezing orders
  2. 2 Whether Hassan Ali Makki made false statements in defence verified by statement of truth (CPR Part 32.14)
  3. 3 Whether non-disclosure and dissipation of assets occurred in breach of court orders

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimants must prove each alleged contempt beyond reasonable doubt. Deliberate non-disclosure or dissipation of assets in breach of search and freezing orders, or making false statements verified by statement of truth, constitutes contempt. The court found that a wilful intention to disobey is not required, only deliberate conduct with knowledge of the order. Hearsay evidence is admissible in civil contempt but its weight is for the court to assess. The burden does not shift to the respondent except where an express proviso in the order applies.

Court Disposition

Application for committal considered; findings on contempt made (specific findings not included in provided text).

Orders

  • Court considered whether Mr Makki was in contempt for breaches of search and freezing orders and for making false statements; outcome on each head to be determined based on findings beyond reasonable doubt.