Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others: ChD 13 Nov 2006

The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding out the threat of future punishment as a means of securing the protection which the injunction is primarily there to do.’ and ‘So far as the penalties are concerned, first, the court may impose an immediate custodial sentence limited to a two-year maximum. A person committed to prison for contempt of court is entitled to unconditional release after serving half of the sentence. A committal order is appropriate where there is serious contumacious flouting of orders of the court.’
Lawrence Collins J
[2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPospischal v Phillips CA 20-Jan-1988
Where property was sold, and assets dissipated in breach of a Mareva injunction, an immediate prison sentence was necessary to both protect the plaintiff and punish the defendant. However, the court substituted a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment . .
See AlsoCrystalmews Ltd (in Liquidation) v Metterick and others ChD 25-Oct-2006
Freezing orders had been made in the course of winding up proceedings after the company was found to have been involved in VAT fraud. Applications were made for the committal of defendants for breach of the freezing orders. . .
CitedHudson v Hudson CA 23-Mar-1995
The defendant withdrew and spent pounds 20,000 in breach of a Mareva injunction
Held: A sentence of nine months imprisonment was not excessive for a flagrant breach of matrimonial court order. . .
CitedAquilina v Aquilina CA 24-Mar-2004
The applicant appealed a sentence of six months imprisonment for breaches of a non-molestation injunction.
Held: The breaches had been non-violent, and the court had not considered whether he was prepared to purge his contempt. A balance had . .
CitedHale v Tanner CA 22-Aug-2000
When attaching a power of arrest on a non-molestation order the court should consider attaching it only to that element which restricts violence or proximity rather than to any part relating to harassment. When considering sentence for a breach, the . .
CitedGulf Azov Shipping Company v Idisi CA 2001
The defendant was found to have committed a serious breach of a freezing injunction.
Held: A committal order is appropriate where there is serious contumacious flouting of orders of the court. The sentence imposed was three months suspended on . .
CitedM (Children) (Contact Order) CA 11-Apr-2005
Where a contemnor sould be fined but would be unable to pay a fine at the level thought appropriate, that was not a good reason to impose imprisonment. . .

Cited by:
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
aspect_christensenChD10
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
aspect_christensenChD10
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408557