High Court holds clients in contempt for failing to pay solicitors £2.3m


Oman: Client said he was not afraid of English judgment

Two clients who owe their solicitors £2.3m in outstanding fees, costs and interest have been found guilty of 14 charges of contempt of court.

Mr Justice Morris found that the clients had breached a court order, made false statements in oral evidence and made false statements verified by statement of truth.

The judge said he would consider sentencing “in due course”.

Hassan Khan & Co and the Khan Partnership, two inter-related firms of solicitors, sued Omani husband and wife Thamer Al-Shanfari and Iman Said Al-Rawas for unpaid fees after acting for them between 2006 and 2009 in “substantial litigation”.

Some of it related to Mr Al-Shanfari being placed on the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions list, due to his involvement with the Zimbabwean regime.

In the original litigation, judges made adverse findings about his conduct, including serious and deliberate material non-disclosure and giving misleading evidence.

In 2018, after suing over unpaid bills, the law firms received judgment in default of £1.16m.

Contacted after the hearing, Mr Al-Shanfari reportedly said he was not afraid of the judgment as it would have to be enforced in Oman and the solicitors would “see what happens” if they tried this.

In addition to the judgment sums, the solicitors have since obtained £864,000 in costs orders and in total, including interest, are owed in excess of £2.3m.

In seeking to enforce the judgment sums and the costs orders, the law firms obtained orders in 2018 under rule 71 requiring each of the defendants to attend and provide information about their means.

They failed to do so four times in the following months and were twice found guilty of contempt, with suspended committal orders imposed.

Eventually a part 71 hearing took place in December 2018, which the defendants attended, produced some documentation and gave oral evidence.

In bringing the contempt application, the law firms alleged that the defendants “deliberately and dishonestly” concealed and obfuscated their assets and interests during the part 71 process and thereafter, in an effort to avoid and frustrate payment of the judgment sums.

The hearing took place in the absence of the defendants, who had been given the opportunity to apply to adjourn it. Their Omani lawyer subsequently wrote to request that Morris J dismiss the case.

He refused to do so, saying: “I accept the claimants’ contention that the belated post-hearing written submission was part of the same long-standing pattern of manipulative conduct through which the defendants have been seeking to frustrate disrupt and delay the processes of this court.

“Indeed. the very act of making this submission after the hearing, rather than taking up the court’s express invitation to apply to adjourn before or at the hearing itself, confirms that this is the case.

“There is no evidence of any new and genuine intention to engage with the process of the court.”




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


The hot graphic design trends in the legal sector

As we recover from an unprecedented 19 months within our sector, marketing teams and clerks’ rooms are keener than ever to try out something new in the promotion of their businesses.


What challenges will the Bar face in the next five years?

As we look towards the end of 2021 and at how the Bar has adapted to the harsh realities of the pandemic, the question beckons as to what the future holds.


The rise of cyber-criminal threat for law firms since Covid-19

The global coronavirus pandemic, and the rise in people working from home, has unfortunately provoked a growth in cyber-crime. The UK government estimates that the cost of cyber-crime is £27bn per annum.


Loading animation