Truell and anor v Zalinska [2021] EWHC 1877 (Ch)

Further Comment

The committal application concerned breaches of freezing orders, alleging the Defendant (i) dissipated c.£76k of the c.£1.4m sitting in her bank account and (ii) 4 grounds of failure to provide full disclosure of her assets.

After trial and cross examination of the Defendant for 1.5 days Green J. held:

1. In respect of the dissipation: “Apart from the limited admissions and findings in respect of Grounds 1 and 2 […] ,I dismiss the allegations of contempt made by the Claimants. As I have also made clear above, I will not be imposing any punishment on Ms Zalinska in relation to the breaches that have been established” [90]

2. In respect of the failure to provide disclosure: “I should say at the outset that in my view none of the four sub-grounds have been proved by the Claimants, and even if they had been, they would have been too trivial to form the subject matter of a committal application” [66] and “I do not think there was any merit in the allegations in Ground 3 and they should not have been pursued to this stage by the Claimants.” [91].

Of note is the court’s comment at [91]: “I also think that the general approach adopted by the Claimants in relation to Ms Zalinska has been disproportionate and designed to impose maximum pressure on her, presumably for tactical advantage in the litigation.” . That comment accords with the heightened concern of the use of committal proceedings as a litigation tactic or to oppress a defendant. Such has recently been brought to the fore in well reported Baker J. judgment,

After trial and cross examination of the Defendant for 1.5 days Green J. held:

1. In respect of the dissipation: “Apart from the limited admissions and findings in respect of Grounds 1 and 2 […] ,I dismiss the allegations of contempt made by the Claimants. As I have also made clear above, I will not be imposing any punishment on Ms Zalinska in relation to the breaches that have been established” [90]

2. In respect of the failure to provide disclosure: “I should say at the outset that in my view none of the four sub-grounds have been proved by the Claimants, and even if they had been, they would have been too trivial to form the subject matter of a committal application” [66] and “I do not think there was any merit in the allegations in Ground 3 and they should not have been pursued to this stage by the Claimants.” [91].

Of note is the court’s comment at [91]: “I also think that the general approach adopted by the Claimants in relation to Ms Zalinska has been disproportionate and designed to impose maximum pressure on her, presumably for tactical advantage in the litigation.” . That comment accords with the heightened concern of the use of committal proceedings as a litigation tactic or to oppress a defendant. Such has recently been brought to the fore in well reported Baker J. judgment, Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2020] EWHC 1798 (Comm). It also featured in a recent permission to bring committal proceedings case, Mohamed v Khalil [2021] 4 WLUK 266  before Trower J. that Amit Karia represented the applicant in. There the court was willing to grant permission as it was satisfied the applicant appreciated the duties his legal advisors owed in a committal application and had confidence that those legal advisors would comply with their independent duty to the court to act appropriately and in the public interest.

A full copy of the judgment by Green J. can be found on Westlaw (with a case summary) here and on BAILII  here.

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