In the UK's civil courts, few sanctions carry the weight and gravity of the committal order. One of the oldest powers in the UK legal system, it is a procedure only used when a judge concludes that the court's authority cannot be upheld through any other means. When an individual is found to be in contempt of court, through deliberately disobeying, frustrating or interfering with the court's orders, a judge can send them to prison, suspend a prison sentence or impose a fine. Although arising from civil proceedings, it carries the same consequence as a criminal sentence: a loss of liberty.
Civil committal orders are exceptionally rare in the UK legal system. Though judges have the authority to impose imprisonment for contempt, they tend to reserve it for only the most serious cases and will typically give litigants opportunity, sometimes multiple, to comply before resorting to this extreme action. So uncommon are these orders that the Ministry of Justice does not specifically track them. This rarity makes the cases where courts do exercise this power all the more significant and offers a clear statement about those involved.
Take for example the case of OCM Maritime Nile LLC & Anor v Courage Shipping Co & Ors (2024), which saw Syrian businessman Abdul Jalil Mallah sentenced to 18 months in prison by the Commercial Court for contempt of court, alongside an asset confiscation order.
OCM Maritime Nile claimed that companies connected to Mallah owed them money under financing arrangements for tankers. When they tried to enforce their rights, they alleged that Mallah had moved assets and concealed ownership of ships to avoid paying, which led them to seek freezing orders and ultimately brought the case into the Commercial Court.
Mallah, who has been listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the US Treasury since 2021, then failed to disclose his assets and made knowingly false statements in sworn documents, ultimately being found to have misled the court. His sustained pattern of dishonesty and obstruction was so strong that the Commercial Court felt it had no choice but to use its rare power of committal.
The case of Sheikh Mohammed Bin Issa Al Jaber -v- Sheikh Walid Bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim and Another [2023], and the subsequent enforcement proceedings, is another example of the Commercial Court resorting to committal powers when faced with persistent non-compliance.
The Commercial Court found Sheikh Al Jaber’s evidence unconvincing and dismissed the entire claim.
Following the 2023 trial, the Commercial Court determined that Al Jaber had lied under oath, forged documents, and pursued proceedings on a manufactured claim. This judgment led to substantial costs orders against him. Subsequent substantial costs orders were imposed against Al Jaber, which he has refused to pay.
In the subsequent enforcement proceedings, Al Jaber has repeatedly failed to comply with the Commercial Court’s orders to attend Court to be cross-examined on his assets or to disclose information in relation to his assets. His wilful breach of the Court’s orders in this respect meant that the matter was escalated to contempt proceedings.
In the contempt proceedings, the court made clear that it had given Al Jaber every opportunity to comply with its orders to both attend Court to be cross-examined on his assets and to provide the relevant disclosure. The Court described Al Jaber’s behaviour as a “cat and mouse” game that had simply gone too far for far too long. Labelling Al Jaber a “quasi-criminal” character, the court imposed a one-year prison sentence, meaning that if he returns to the UK, he will immediately serve time in custody. That the Commercial Court took this rare step underscores both the gravity of Al Jaber’s conduct and the court’s determination to uphold its authority when all other sanctions have failed.
These are two extreme cases that showcase that this power is only ever used when the character of the individual is really called into question. Both men were found to have defied court orders and misled the judiciary, and both were punished by this rare but impactful power of the court.
There is a clear message for litigants within these cases, persistent dishonesty and defiance of the court could not only end with financial penalties, but with the ultimate sanction of imprisonment.
