Paul Andrew Whittaker v Bertha UK Limited
[2023] EWHC 2554 (Ch)
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v John Forster Emmott
1 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2781 (Comm)
High Court
A company was accused of ignoring court orders. The judge said they hadn't followed the rules properly and threw out most of their case, but let some parts continue. The judge also said the company's attempt to get a previous court decision changed was completely pointless.
Key Facts
- •Application by defendant to strike out claimant's committal application for contempt.
- •Claimant's application for permission to amend the committal application notice.
- •Claimant's application to set aside a February 2024 order (dismissed).
- •Defendant's application to certify the set-aside application as totally without merit.
- •Allegations of contempt relate to breaches of a worldwide freezing order (discharged in 2010) and personal undertakings.
- •Extensive history of litigation between the parties spanning decades and multiple jurisdictions.
- •Claimant's alleged serial procedural failings and disproportionate cost burden on public resources.
- •Disputes regarding the sufficiency of particularization in the application notice and supporting evidence.
- •February 2024 order established procedural directions for the claimant to amend the application notice and provide compliant evidence.
Legal Principles
Contempt applications must comply strictly with the formal requirements of CPR Part 81.
CPR Part 81
Applicant is confined strictly and solely to attempting to prove allegations in the application notice.
Navigator Equities Limited v Deripaska [2024] EWCA Civ 268
Heightened standard of procedural fairness in favour of the defendant in contempt proceedings.
Navigator Equities Limited v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799
Contempt application must be supported by written evidence (affidavit or affirmation).
CPR Rule 81.4(1)
Alleged contemnor entitled to know precisely what is alleged against them.
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2020] EWHC 3536
Application notice should be a succinct summary of the applicant's case.
Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc [2020] EWHC 3536
Outcomes
Defendant's application to strike out the committal application is partially granted.
Claimant failed to comply with February 2024 order regarding procedural requirements and particularization. Many allegations were deemed unarguable or based on stale information.
Claimant's application to amend is partially granted.
Permission granted for amendments relating to breaches of cost undertakings and some aspects of freezing order breaches. Permission refused for amendments that lacked particularity, involved stale allegations, or related to issues pending before foreign courts.
Defendant's application to certify the set-aside application as totally without merit is granted.
Set-aside application was an impermissible attempt to re-argue matters already decided and failed to comply with basic procedural requirements.