Mohamed v Khalil [2021] 4 WLUK 266 – Contempt Permission

Further Comment

The allegation spanned statements in 14 documents and across 2 High Court claims. A summary of the judgment of Mr Justice Trower can be found here.

The factors for the court to considered in granting permission (which has been unchanged by the new CPR 81) are well established from KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2009] 1 WLR 2406 per Moore Bick LJ at [16]-[17].

The particularly interesting issue here, at least for practitioners, is the more recent approach of the court on such committal application to look at the subjective “prosecutorial motive” of the applicant and querying whether legal advisors are pursuing such proceedings in an even-handed fashion in the public interest. Such concerns and factors don’t otherwise feature in civil/commercial litigation, but on committal applications due to their quasi criminal nature they do, as emphasised in the well-publicised judgment of Baker J Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2020] EWHC 1798 (Comm). 

Part of the reasoning for granting permission by Mr Justice Trower was that the court was satisfied the applicant appreciated the duties his legal advisors owed in such an application and confidence that those legal advisors where aware and would act pursuant to their duties in the public interest.

Amit Karia will be doing a seminar on the practicalities of contempt applications, details to follow.