Committal for Contempt of Court in the Business And Property Courts Of England And Wales: Hamza Sabir v Imperial Offices UK

Business and Property CourtsInsolvency and Companies ListCommittal for Contempt of Court

Claim No. CR-2021-000610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST (ChD)

Date: 26/01/2022

Between:
HAMZA SABIR
-v-
(1) IMPERIAL OFFICES UK LIMITED
(2) TAHEER AHMED SARDAR
(3) SAME DAY OFFICE SPACE LIMITED
(4) IMPERIAL OFFICES LONDON LIMITED

NOTE OF COMMITTAL HEARING

  1. This was the hearing of a committal application. The committal application was made by the Applicant in these proceedings, Hamza Sabir, against the Second Respondent in these proceedings, Taheer Ahmed Sardar.
  2. The application was heard over two separate days, on 17th December 2021 and 24th January 2022. Both parties were represented by counsel.  Judgment on the application was delivered orally in court on 26th January 2022.
  3. For the reasons set out in the principal judgment delivered on 26th January 2022, the Court found that the Second Respondent was in contempt of court in that he had breached two undertakings which he gave to the court. The undertakings were given to the court on 28th May 2021 as part of an order made by Deputy ICC Judge Agnello QC.  The order in question is dated 1st June 2021.
  4. The specific findings of contempt of court made by the Court on the application were as follows:

(1)        The Second Respondent had breached the second of the undertakings given to the court by restraining and/or hindering and/or otherwise obstructing the Applicant from carrying out and/or discharging his lawful duties or conduct as a director of the Company, by restraining and/or hindering and/or otherwise obstructing the Applicant from accessing the bank statements of the Company in respect of its account with Barclays Bank.  Specifically, the Second Respondent breached this undertaking by failing to provide the Applicant with bank statements for the Company’s Barclays Bank account (covering the period from 1st April 2021 to 17th June 2021), notwithstanding a series of requests for the provision of these bank statements made by the Applicant to the Second Respondent.

(2)        The Second Respondent had breached the third of the undertakings given to the court by restraining and/or hindering and/or otherwise obstructing the Applicant from accessing the bank statements of the Company in respect of its account with Barclays Bank.  Specifically, the Second Respondent breached this undertaking by failing to provide the Applicant with bank statements for the Company’s Barclays Bank account (covering the period from 1st April 2021 to 17th June 2021), notwithstanding a series of requests for the provision of these bank statements made by the Applicant to the Second Respondent.

  1. The Court then proceeded to consider what sentence to impose upon the Second Respondent in respect of the contempt of court found against him. For the reasons set out in a further judgment, also delivered orally at the hearing on 26th January 2022, the Court decided that the Second Respondent should pay a fine of £2,000, to be paid by 4.00pm on 9th February 2022.
  2. The Court then proceeded to consider the costs of the application. For the reasons set out in a further judgment, also delivered orally on 26th January 2022, the Court decided that the Second Respondent should pay the Applicant’s costs of the application, to be subject to a detailed assessment on the indemnity basis, if not agreed (with permission, if required, to commence the assessment forthwith), together with an interim payment on account of those costs in the sum £45,000, to be paid by 4.00pm on 23rd February 2022.