Domestic & General Group Limited & Ors v Premier Protect Holdings Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 2405 (KB)

[2025] EWHC 2405 (KB)Case No QB-2021-000136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 23 September 2025
Before
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER
Between
DOMESTIC & GENERAL GROUP LIMITEDClaimantsDOMESTIC & GENERAL INSURANCE PLCClaimantDOMESTIC & GENERAL SERVICES LIMITEDClaimantPREMIER PROTECT HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)DefendantsABDELHAK AKAYOURDefendantAPEX ASSURE LIMITED (DISSOLVED)DefendantBELAL ALIDefendantHOME PROTECT 365 LIMITEDDefendantPREMIER PROTECT 365 SLDefendantRACHID EL HADDOUCHIDefendantHICHAM ALAMIDefendantUK SERVICE PLAN LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)DefendantMOHAMED ANOIR DHIMIDefendantMOHAMMED ZAKRIA KHANDefendant
Nicholas Goodfellow (instructed by the Claimants’ in-house solicitors) for ClaimantsJoshua Hitchens (instructed by Janes Solicitors) for Second DefendantHelen Pugh (instructed by Janes Solicitors) for Fourth DefendantMichael Uberoi (instructed by Janes Solicitors) for Tenth DefendantHearing Hearing date: 26 June 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down in Court 14 at 12:00pm on 23 September 2025 and by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................
[1]These are my reasons for the decisions which I announced on 26 June 2025 in respect of committal applications made by the claimants against three of the defendants, Abdelhak Akayour, Belal Ali and Mohamed Anoir Dhimi.[2]The background is fully set out in my judgment of 21 October 2024: [2024] EWHC 2654 (KB) (“the principal judgment”). I found that these three defendants and others had committed the torts of causing loss by unlawful means and conspiring to use unlawful means. I found that they did so by causing fraudulent misrepresentations to be made to the claimants’ customers with the intention of causing loss to the claimants. (2) The Committal Applications[3]As I mentioned in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the principal judgment, on 20 June 2023 the claimants issued contempt applications against Mr Akayour, Mr Ali and Apex Assure, on 11 December 2023 Cotter J found that Mr Akayour and Mr Ali were in contempt of court and the balance of the contempt applications, which concerns sanctions, was adjourned until after the trial.[4]On 2 May 2025 the claimants issued further committal applications against these defendants (“the 2025 committal applications”). In the course of the principal judgment, I made a number of adverse findings about these defendants. The aspects of the 2025 committal applications addressed in this judgment relate to some of those findings. I will refer to these as “the disputed allegations” because there is a dispute as to whether they should proceed to a hearing.[5]Each of these defendants accepted that the committal application against him should proceed in respect of at least one allegation of contempt. The disputed allegations were as follows:(1) It was alleged that Mr Akayour gave misleading evidence in his witness statement dated 7 June 2021 because he did not disclose that he was a director of Personal Recruitment Outsourcing (“PRO”): see paragraphs 16, 26, 39 to 41, 159 and 163 of the principal judgment.(2) It was alleged that Mr Ali made the following false statements (which I addressed in paragraphs 25, 42, 46, 181 and 232 of the principal judgment): (a) In his witness statement dated 18 February 2021: (i) “At no time has AAL made any outbound sales calls itself.” (ii) “I can confirm that, at no time, have I or AAL (or anyone on its behalf) created any training materials or scripts.” (iii) “… at no time have either I or AAL employed any person to make any sales calls and, accordingly, there are no materials that have been provided to any of the staff for this purpose; all sales calls are made by the Third Party Companies. …” (b) In his first affidavit dated 16 April 2021: “… at no time has AAL made any outbound sales calls itself. …” (c) In his defence dated 11 June 2021: “Neither Premier Protect nor Apex Assure contacted potential customers directly or made calls to potential customers. …” (d) In his witness statement dated 7 November 2023: (i) “… The Company never transacted any deals by virtue of its inability to accept money from potential customers.” (ii) “… None of the individuals featured can fairly be described as customers, because none of them ever paid money to the Company and so none of them ever received the home appliance cover on offer.”(3) It was alleged that Mr Dhimi made the following false statements in his witness statement dated 22 December 2023 (which I addressed in paragraphs 85 to 95 of the principal judgment): (a) “I have met the Fourth Defendant socially through the Second Defendant but do not have a close personal relationship or a business relationship with him or any of the businesses he is associated with.” (b) “… As set out above, other than some basic pointers in relation to the industry as a whole from the Second Defendant I sought no input from and had no discussions with any other parties when deciding to set up UKSP.” (3) The Law[6]CPR 81.3(5) provides as follows:
“Permission to make a contempt application is required where the application is made in relation to— (a) interference with the due administration of justice, except in relation to existing High Court or county court proceedings; (b) an allegation of knowingly making a false statement in any affidavit, affirmation or other document verified by a statement of truth or in a disclosure statement.”
[7]It was common ground that:(1) The claimants did not need the court’s permission to pursue the disputed allegation against Mr Akayour, but the court had a discretion to stay the committal application.(2) Pursuant to CPR 81.3(5)(b), the claimants needed the court’s permission to pursue the disputed allegations against Mr Ali and Mr Dhimi.[8]In paragraph 44 of her judgment in Tinkler v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564 Gloster LJ approved the following statement by HHJ Pelling QC of the principles applicable to an application for permission: “… The approach to be adopted on applications for permission has been considered in a number of authorities. The principles that emerge are the following: i) In order for an allegation of contempt to succeed it must be shown that " in addition to knowing that what you are saying is false, you had to have known that what you are saying was likely to interfere with the course of justice” - see Edward Nield v. Loveday [2011] EWHC 2324 (Admin); ii) The burden of proof is on the party alleging the contempt who must prove each element identified above beyond reasonable doubt - see Edward Nield v. Loveday (ante); iii) A statement made by someone who effectively does not care whether it is true or false is liable as if that person knew what was being said was false - see Berry Piling Systems Limited v. Sheer Projects Limited [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC), Paragraph 28 - but carelessness will not be sufficient - see Berry Piling Systems Limited v. Sheer Projects Limited (ante), Paragraph 30(c); iv) Permission should not be granted unless a strong prima facie case has been shown against the alleged contemnor- see Malgar Limited v. RE Leach (Engineering) Limited [1999] EWHC 843 (Ch), Kirk v. Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB), Cox J at paragraph 29 and Berry Piling Systems Limited v. Sheer Projects Limited (ante) at Paragraph 30(a); v) Before permission is given the court should be satisfied that a) the public interest requires the committal proceedings to be brought; b) The proposed committal proceedings are proportionate; and c) The proposed committal proceedings are in accordance with the overriding objective - - see Kirk v. Walton (ante) at paragraph 29; vi) In assessing proportionality, regard is to be had to the strength of the case against the respondents, the value of the claim in respect of which the allegedly false statement was made, the likely costs that will be incurred by each side in pursuing the contempt proceedings and the amount of court time likely to be involved in case managing and then hearing the application but bearing in mind the overriding objective - see - Berry Piling Systems Limited v. Sheer Projects Limited (ante) at Paragraph 30(d); vii) In assessing whether the pubic (sic) interest requires that permission be granted, regard should be had to the strength of the evidence tending to show that the statement was false and known at the time to be false, the circumstances in which it came to be made, its significance, the use to which it was actually put and the maker's understanding of the likely effect of the statement bearing in mind that the public interest lies in bringing home to the profession and through the profession to witnesses the dangers of knowingly making false statements - see KJM Superbikes Limited v. Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280, Moore-Bick LJ at Paragraphs 16 and 23; and viii) In determining a permission application, care should be taken to avoid prejudicing the outcome of the application if permission is to be given by avoiding saying more about the merits of the complaint than is necessary to resolve the permission application - see KJM Superbikes Limited v. Hinton (ante) at Paragraph 20.” a) the public interest requires the committal proceedings to be brought; b) The proposed committal proceedings are proportionate; and c) The proposed committal proceedings are in accordance with the overriding objective - - see Kirk v. Walton (ante) at paragraph 29; (4) The Disputed Allegation against Mr Akayour[9]The claimants submitted that:(1) In his witness statement Mr Akayour sought to give the impression that PRO was an independent third party when, in fact, he was a director of it and materially involved in running its business operation.(2) The purpose of presenting a misleading picture of having outsourced the customer calling function was to create distance between Mr Akayour and the sales callers, so as to deny authority or responsibility for the sales call.(3) There is compelling evidence that Mr Akayour was a director of PRO.(4) Mr Akayour must have known his evidence was misleading and designed to interfere with the due administration of justice. Had it not become apparent from other evidence that Mr Akayour was involved in materially running PRO, his attempt to distance himself from the sales calling operation may have succeeded in achieving the desired result.[10]Mr Akayour submitted that:(1) He did not make a false statement in his witness statement. He is alleged to have committed contempt by means of an omission to mention something in his witness statement.(2) He was not a director of PRO. The only evidence that he was came from his description of himself as “director” on undated screenshots from his LinkedIn profile. A Moroccan Trade Register document provides some evidence that he was not a director, since it names someone else as the only “dirigeant” or “gerant”. The claimants cannot establish to the criminal standard that he was a director of PRO on 7 June 2021.(3) Nor can the claimants prove to the criminal standard that he had a specific intention to interfere with the administration of justice or that his actions in making the witness statement created a risk of an interference with the administration of justice that was sufficiently serious to amount to the actus reus of criminal contempt.[11]I was not satisfied either that the case against Mr Akayour was strong enough to justify the committal application proceeding in respect of this allegation or that it was in the public interest for it to proceed. The allegation that he was a director of PRO is to be read as an allegation that he was in law a director and not, as Mr Goodfellow submitted, a “director” in some looser sense. There is sufficient uncertainty that the claimants may well not be able to prove to the criminal standard that Mr Akayour was a director of PRO. I decided to stay the committal application in respect of the disputed allegation against Mr Akayour. (5) The Disputed Allegations against Mr Ali[12]The claimants submitted that:(1) There was compelling evidence that the statements made by Mr Ali were false. I dealt with this evidence in paragraph 25 of the principal judgment.(2) Mr Ali must have known that the false statements he made were likely to interfere with the administration of justice, by concealing the true position.[13]Mr Ali submitted that:(1) The liquidator’s report confirms that Apex Assure did not have a bank account.(2) Contempt proceedings do not automatically flow from the vast majority of cases where there is a judgment disbelieving the evidence of a witness.(3) The public interest is already to be vindicated by the sanction which Mr Ali will receive for the contempt which he has already admitted, which overlaps with the disputed allegations.(4) Mr Ali has also been ordered to pay £340,000 in costs.(5) Any interference with the administration of justice was mitigated by the order debarring Mr Ali from defending the action.(6) The public interest has already been served by the conduct of Trading Standards, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Information Commissioner’s Office and Apex Assure’s liquidator.[14]I consider that there is a strong prima facie case against Mr Ali, who did not seek to argue that all of the statements which he made were true or that he believed them all to be true.[15]The contempt which Mr Ali has admitted was his failure to provide the witness statement ordered first by paragraph 8 of the order of 3 November 2022 and then by paragraph 2 of the order of 11 January 2023: see paragraphs 47(2)(b), 49(1) and 53(2) of the principal judgment. Those orders concerned Apex Assure’s customers and Mr Ali’s statements that Apex Assure had no customers, but not his statements about scripts and sales calls. For that reason, I refused permission in respect of Mr Ali’s statements to the effect that Apex Assure had no customers.[16]I accept that it is not in every case where a witness is found to have lied that it will be in the public interest for a committal application to proceed, but there is a strong prima facie case that Mr Ali’s allegedly false statements were intended to frustrate the disclosure process, on which the court relies to ensure that the parties are able to get at the truth, especially in a case such as the present, where the claimants’ case depended on documents in the possession of the defendants. Accordingly, I decided that it was in the public interest for the committal application to proceed in respect of Mr Ali’s statements about scripts and customer calls and I granted permission accordingly. (6) The Disputed Allegations against Mr Dhimi[17]The claimants again submitted that there was compelling evidence that Mr Dhimi made false statements in his witness statement and that he knew that they were false. Mr Dhimi did not dispute that there was a strong prima facie case against him. He submitted, however, that the public interest had been satisfied by the principal judgment.[18]Mr Dhimi’s allegedly false statements supported his and UKSP’s case on issue 5, which was a central issue in this case and which I addressed at some length in paragraphs 62 to 101 of the principal judgment (and see also paragraph 169), i.e. whether UKSP was established to continue the business and operations previously conducted by Premier Protect and/or Apex Assure.[19]Another factor in relation to Mr Dhimi is that one of the contempt allegations which it is accepted can proceed against him is that when he gave evidence at trial he made a false statement that he did not knowingly have any business relationship with Mr Ali. This is the same as one of the false statements which he is alleged to have made in his witness statement. Since he is to be accused of contempt by making that statement in the witness box, it is appropriate for the claimants to be allowed to proceed with the allegation that he committed contempt when he made the same statement in his witness statement.[20]In those circumstances, I considered that it was in the public interest for the committal application to proceed in respect of the disputed allegations against Mr Dhimi and I granted permission accordingly.