SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
John Charles Jones v Roderic Alexander Innes Hamilton
24 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1216 (Ch)
High Court
John broke several court orders, lied about his money, and hid assets. The judge said he did it on purpose and now he'll face punishment.
Key Facts
- •Mr. John Jones was found in contempt of court for breaching various court orders and undertakings.
- •The case involved highly acrimonious and complex litigation between Mr. Jones and Mr. Roderic Hamilton.
- •The contempt proceedings stemmed from breaches of freezing orders, asset preservation orders, disclosure orders, and an undertaking given to the court.
- •Multiple court orders were issued against Mr. Jones over a prolonged period, including freezing orders, asset disclosure orders, and orders for the provision of information.
- •Allegations included breaches of undertakings given in solicitors' letters and court orders, and the submission of false affidavits.
- •The case involved complex financial transactions and business arrangements across multiple jurisdictions.
Legal Principles
Criminal standard of proof applies in committal for contempt of court.
[2023] EWHC 135 (Comm) at [37]
To be in contempt, respondent must know of the order, act/fail to act as prohibited/required, and intend to do so (inadvertent conduct insufficient).
Varma v Atkinson & Anothe r [2020] EWCA Civ 1602 at [54]
Knowledge of the breach itself is not required, only knowledge of the order and the act/omission.
Varma v Atkinson & Anothe r [2020] EWCA Civ 1602 at [54]
Breach of undertaking to the court is contempt; undertakings are construed strictly.
Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799 at [82]
It's no defense that the order was wrongly made or accepted; orders must be followed even if burdensome.
Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799 at [82]
Intention to breach is not necessary, only deliberate intent to commit the act/omission. Motive is irrelevant.
Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799 at [82]
Court can consider cumulative effect of explanations to assess deceitfulness.
Kea Investments Ltd v Watson [2020] EWHC 2599 (Ch) at [18]
'Impossibility' defense applies only if compliance was truly impossible, leaving no choice.
Sectorguard Plc v Dienne Plc [2009] EWHC 2693 (Ch) at [33]
For false statement contempt, the statement must be false, the respondent must have no honest belief it was true, and it must likely interfere with the course of justice.
AXA Insurance UK PLC v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB) at [9]
Outcomes
Mr. Jones found in contempt of court.
Breaches of various court orders and undertakings related to the ‘Tranche 3 Funds’, dissipation of UK assets, failure to provide information, false affidavits of assets, and other matters.
Grounds 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13-14 not established.
Insufficient evidence, ambiguity in orders, lack of proper valuation, and issues with the standard of proof.
Grounds 2-4, 8 (Rector Jaume), 10, 12 (partially), and 15 established.
Clear breaches of orders, deliberate actions to conceal funds, and submission of false information.
Similar Cases
Tonstate Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Anor v Edward Wojakovski
[2023] EWHC 3119 (Ch)
Nebahat Evyap Işbilen v Selman Turk & Ors
[2024] EWHC 505 (Ch)
Ignite International Brands (UK) Limited & Anor v Inpero Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 220 (KB)
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v John Forster Emmott
[2024] EWHC 2781 (Comm)