The court consider its sentence on one of the defendants found to be in contempt of court.
Held: Mr Kythreotis was sentenced on the basis that the contempt had been purged, without making any finding as to whether there had been full and proper compliance with the disclosure obligations. Proudman J referred to the matters urged in mitigation, notong that the bank had not proved any specific prejudice caused by the delay, although it had been set back by some two months in its enquiries. She noted that the contempt was deliberate, but on the other hand Mr Kythreotis had subsequently co-operated by answering the schedule D questions and ‘providing a huge amount of disclosure at very substantial expense’. The judge concluded that the costs incurred by Mr Kythreotis in making disclosure coupled with his liability for the costs of the committal proceedings were ‘punishment enough’. Accordingly the judge imposed no sentence for Mr Kythreotis’ contempt, beyond ordering him to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
Judges:
Proudman J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2843 (Ch), [2011] 1 WLR 906
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lightfoot v Lightfoot CA 1989
In matrimonial proceedings, Mr L had defied a court order to pay redundancy and other money due to him into a solicitors’ joint account upon receipt, pending further order. Mr L received andpound;30,000, paid all the money into his own account, . .
Cited – Taylor Made Golf Company Inc v Rata and Rata 1996
The defendants had failed to comply with an Anton Piller order which required the disclosure of information, service of affidavits and delivery up of articles and documents. Despite those breaches the plaintiff’s solicitors had succeeded in . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and Others CA 28-Oct-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentenced for contempt of court. He said that the sentence should have been at worst an order for costs. He had been chairman of the claimant bank, and stood accused of fraud.
Held: In some cases the sanction . .
Cited – B (Algeria) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 30-Jan-2013
B had been under arrest on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity, but had not revealed his identity, in contempt of court orders to do so, so that the respondent was unable to secure a destiny for his deportation. He had been sentenced to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442585
