High Court finds Belal Ali and Mohamed Anoir Dhimi guilty of contempt after false evidence
High Court contempt proceedings have resulted in findings against two men after a judge concluded that false statements were knowingly presented during litigation involving the sale and marketing of domestic appliance warranty products.
Mr Justice Sweeting handed down judgment on 5 August 2026 in the High Court, King’s Bench Division, following a hearing held between 27 April and 1 May 2026. The case concerned applications brought by Domestic & General Group Limited, Domestic & General Insurance PLC and Domestic & General Services Limited against several defendants.
The court found Belal Ali, who was the sole director and shareholder of Apex Assure Ltd, guilty of contempt in relation to false statements and the continuation of conduct prohibited by a court order made on 21 January 2021. Mohamed Anoir Dhimi, associated with UK Service Plan Ltd (UKSP), was separately found guilty of contempt over statements the court concluded were false and made without an honest belief in their truth.
The underlying litigation concerned allegations that businesses selling appliance-care products had used telephone sales calls that created the impression that callers were connected with Domestic & General or a customer’s existing protection provider. The claimants alleged that businesses operating under different corporate names were successive versions of substantially the same operation.
The present proceedings were narrower. They focused on whether Mr Ali and Mr Dhimi had interfered with the administration of justice by making false statements and, in Mr Ali’s case, whether he had knowingly participated in breaches of the January 2021 order.
The court heard that an interim injunction made in January 2021 prohibited certain alleged misrepresentations and imposed obligations concerning the preservation and disclosure of material, including sales-call recordings, transcripts and training materials. The claimants alleged that the prohibited conduct continued after the order was made.
A significant part of the evidence came from a Trading Standards investigation and a search of premises at 127 Gloucester Road, Brighton, in May 2021. Investigators recovered sales scripts, business documents, employee questionnaires and electronic material. The judgment records that some documents linked different trading entities and that material recovered from the premises and a server was inconsistent with Mr Ali’s account that Apex Assure did not itself conduct outbound sales activity or create and use relevant scripts.
The judge concluded that Apex Assure had been actively involved in the sales operation. He found that the Gloucester Road premises had been used as an operational centre and that scripts and sales materials had been created, maintained and used as part of the business. The court also found substantial continuity of personnel, infrastructure, systems, documentation and business activity between the various entities.
The judgment further found that the activities covered by the January 2021 injunction did not cease after the order was made. Mr Justice Sweeting concluded that substantially the same personnel, infrastructure, systems and methods continued to be used, despite changes in corporate vehicles. He found that Mr Ali knew the activities were continuing and had failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance. The court concluded that his involvement went beyond inaction and that he knowingly participated in and facilitated the continuation of the conduct.
The court also considered the position of Mr Dhimi and UKSP. It found that UKSP was not, in substance, an independent newcomer but represented a continuation of the business previously conducted through the earlier entities. The judge relied on evidence concerning shared personnel, infrastructure, operational records, business arrangements and documentation.
Mr Dhimi had made statements concerning his relationship with Mr Ali and the independence of UKSP. The court concluded that those statements were false and that Mr Dhimi did not honestly believe them to be true. The judge found that the statements presented an inaccurate picture of UKSP and its relationship with the earlier businesses and held that the allegations against Mr Dhimi were proved to the criminal standard.
The court stressed that the contempt allegations had to be determined afresh and to the criminal standard of proof. It did not simply adopt factual findings from the earlier liability proceedings. Instead, Mr Justice Sweeting said he had reached his conclusions from the evidence presented in the contempt proceedings.
In his overall conclusions, the judge found that the documentary evidence, including scripts, employee questionnaires, server records, metadata, payroll records, banking material, office records and customer documentation, supported the claimants’ case. He concluded that the relevant statements made by both defendants were knowingly false.
Mr Justice Sweeting therefore found Mr Ali and Mr Dhimi guilty of contempt of court. The judgment states that the court would hear the parties on the appropriate consequential orders and, in due course, on sanction. No sanction was determined in the judgment handed down on 5 August 2026