Alokaili & Anor v Chohan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2043 (Ch) (29 July 2022)

Alokaili & Anor v Chohan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2043 (Ch) (29 July 2022)

The Second Defendant failed to comply with the disclosure order by not providing full and frank disclosure of his beneficial interest in Croydon Tower and by giving dishonest evidence regarding his assets. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that he remains in contempt and has not purged his contempt.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2043 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Riyadh Nasser Alokaili; Claimant: Mr Nassir Abdullah Alokaili; Defendant: Mr Baljinder Chohan (a.k.a. Bally Chohan); Defendant: Mr Bhupinder Chohan; Defendant: Sloane International Developments 1 Limited; Defendant: Hill & Standard Developments; Defendant: HS1 Properties Limited; Defendant: Sloane 1 Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt/committal Application / Application to Purge Contempt Following Committal Order
Outcome
Application to purge contempt refused; Second Defendant remains in contempt.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Disclosure Obligations, Enforcement of Judgments, Beneficial Ownership, Asset Tracing
Civil Procedure Insolvency Asset Recovery Committal for Contempt Disclosure Obligations Enforcement of Judgments Beneficial Ownership Asset Tracing

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Riyadh Nasser Alokaili

Claimant

Mr Nassir Abdullah Alokaili

Claimant

Mr Baljinder Chohan (a.k.a. Bally Chohan)

Defendant

Mr Bhupinder Chohan

Defendant

Sloane International Developments 1 Limited

Defendant

Hill & Standard Developments

Defendant

HS1 Properties Limited

Defendant

Sloane 1 Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt/committal Application / Application to Purge Contempt Following Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Defendant has purged his contempt by complying with disclosure obligations under the court order
  2. 2 Whether the Second Defendant remains in contempt for failing to provide full and frank disclosure of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant failed to comply with the disclosure order by not providing full and frank disclosure of his beneficial interest in Croydon Tower and by giving dishonest evidence regarding his assets. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that he remains in contempt and has not purged his contempt.

Court Disposition

Application to purge contempt refused; Second Defendant remains in contempt.

Orders

  • Second Defendant to surrender to custody as previously ordered.
  • No discharge of committal order; sentence to commence as directed.