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 obtaining the relevant information and articles through other means. The defendants admitted contempt and expressed contrition. The costs of the application had been caused entirely by the defendants; the costs incurred by the plaintiff could have been reduced if the defendants had cooperated and complied with their obligations; and there had been clear warnings from the plaintiff’s solicitors that the defendants’ obduracy was causing increased costs. He had in addition been supplied with a draft bill of costs at which no criticism had been levelled.
Held: A fine of andpound;75,000 was imposed. Laddie J said it was for the defendants a swingeing fine, because: ‘During the course of this application it seemed to me that the penny was beginning to drop as far as these defendants were concerned. I think that they probably now realise the threat of imprisonment is real and that if they breach a court order in the future they probably can expect no mercy. For the moment, it is therefore not necessary for me to impose any custodial sentence but, on the other hand, the breach here was so serious that it must be reflected in a significant financial penalty on the partnership’.
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
[1996] FSR 528
Cited by:
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and others ChD 2-Nov-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.471978