Adam Johnson J: Serious contempt of court
A High Court judge has sentenced the non-lawyer owner of a defunct law firm to 12 months’ imprisonment for contempt of court after she failed to comply with a freezing order obtained by its previous owners.
Mr Justice Adam Johnson took the action [1] in the absence of Dorota Kazimiera Newman because she had failed to engage with the proceedings in any way.
In the underlying claim, Jay Singh Sahota said he and his wife, Joti Kaur Sahota, were owed £346,000 by Ms Newman, who took over Jarmans Solicitors in Sittingbourne, Kent in 2022.
Judgment in default was entered in November 2024 and last month Master Pester assessed the sum owed as £415,270 plus costs of £83,075.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) closed Jarmans in March 2024 [2] because there was reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of Ms Newman.
In February 2025, it disqualified Ms Newman [3] from working in or managing law firms, having found that she authorised 18 improper transfers from client to office account, causing a shortage of £3,700 shortage on client account.
She also failed to maintain the firm’s accounts in compliance with the SRA accounts rules.
Then in March, Mr Justice Miles granted [4] Mr and Mrs Sahota’s application for an interim freezing injunction against Ms Newman’s assets, which include properties in London and Exeter. A penal notice was attached.
The freezing order was later continued by Mr Justice Marcus Smith, while after that Mr Justice Michael Green dispensed with the requirement for personal service of both the freezing order and contempt application as “it seems that the respondent is deliberately seeking to evade service”.
The judge noted that Ms Newman’s practice was to block the Sahota’s solicitors’ WhatsApp messages.
The application for committal for contempt concerned Ms Newman’s failure to comply with the requirements in the freezing order to provide information about her assets in England and Wales worth over £1,000.
Adam Johnson J adjourned the first hearing last month because of Ms Newman’s absence and issued an order directing her to attend court and a bench warrant to compel her attendance.
However, Ms Newman did not attend Tuesday’s hearing. “Neither could she be located, although the tipstaff caused visits to be made to a number of premises,” the judge said.
He decided he was justified in continuing the hearing in her absence. “In my opinion, given the extensive efforts made to serve the defendant and to engage with her and treat her fairly, the overriding objective is best served by continuing with the application. To do otherwise would be unfair to the claimants.”
Finding her in contempt, the judge considered it a “serious one”. He explained: “Her failure to take any part in the proceedings sets the context, and indicates that the breach is the result of a deliberate policy of non-engagement. The degree of culpability is therefore high.
“Ms Newman must appreciate the seriousness of her actions: as I have explained, the background to the contempt application was her acquisition of a solicitors’ firm.
“Although I understand she is not a solicitor, this suggests a degree of intelligence and commercial awareness fully consistent with the idea that she must appreciate what she is doing and its consequences. Finally, there has been no apology or excuse, or indeed any explanation at all.”
Adam Johnson J decided against suspending the sentence, as the seriousness of the contempt “requires action to be taken now, in part as a deterrent to others”.
But he specified that half of the sentence was intended to reflect punishment for the breaches to date, and the other half to seek compliance.
“Ms Newman can still apply to purge her contempt if she wishes to do so. If, even now, she complies with the freezing order in full, she will be able to seek an order for release and discharge.
“The judge dealing with any such application will be able to take into account the indications I have given, as to that part of the sentence which is referable to future conduct.”
The Sahotas’ solicitor, Akbar Ali, managing director of central London firm Ali Legal, said: “Litigation is often bitter sweet. The defendant is a person and I can’t ignore that jail time stemming from a commercial dispute is grave and serious.
“Ms Newman has seemingly buried her head in the sand and ignored court orders. She’s failed to engage and the situation has become much worser than it needed to. Our clients have suffered significant financial loss and it’s taken a toll on their wellbeing so we are pleased to secure a win for them and a real consequence for the defendant’s failure to comply with a court order.”