BUSINESS MORTGAGE FINANCE 4 PLC & ORS v RIZWAN HUSSAIN

BUSINESS MORTGAGE FINANCE 4 PLC & ORS v RIZWAN HUSSAIN

Given the Defendant's repeated, deliberate, and premeditated breaches of the injunction, lack of remorse, evasion of court process, and ongoing risk of further contempt, only an immediate custodial sentence of twenty-four months meets the justice of the case. Lesser sanctions are inadequate. Dispensation with personal service is justified due to the Defendant's evasion. Indemnity costs are warranted. Referral to the Attorney-General is appropriate for consideration of vexatious litigant proceedings.

Parties
Claimants: Business Mortgage Finance 4 PLC & Ors; Defendant: Rizwan Hussain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Sanctions Hearing and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant sentenced to immediate imprisonment for twenty-four months for contempt of court; committal order and warrant to issue immediately; indemnity costs awarded to Claimants; referral to Attorney-General directed; no stay of committal order or warrant granted.
Legal Topics
Breach of Injunction, Sanctions for Contempt, Committal Proceedings, Costs Orders, Service of Orders, Flight Risk, Legal Aid in Committal, Vexatious Litigant
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Breach of Injunction Sanctions for Contempt Committal Proceedings Costs Orders Service of Orders Flight Risk +2 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Business Mortgage Finance 4 PLC & Ors

Claimants

Rizwan Hussain

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Sanctions Hearing and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sanction for the Defendant's contempts of court?
  2. 2 Should the committal order and warrant be stayed pending appeal?
  3. 3 Should personal service of the committal order and warrant be dispensed with?

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Defendant's repeated, deliberate, and premeditated breaches of the injunction, lack of remorse, evasion of court process, and ongoing risk of further contempt, only an immediate custodial sentence of twenty-four months meets the justice of the case. Lesser sanctions are inadequate. Dispensation with personal service is justified due to the Defendant's evasion. Indemnity costs are warranted. Referral to the Attorney-General is appropriate for consideration of vexatious litigant proceedings.

Court Disposition

Defendant sentenced to immediate imprisonment for twenty-four months for contempt of court; committal order and warrant to issue immediately; indemnity costs awarded to Claimants; referral to Attorney-General directed; no stay of committal order or warrant granted.

Orders

  • Defendant sentenced to twenty-four months' imprisonment for contempt of court.
  • Order of committal and warrant of committal to be issued immediately.