Zi Wang v Graham Darby
[2024] EWHC 1394 (Comm)
SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor
31 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
High Court
A man was found guilty of ignoring a court order to freeze his assets. He didn't fully list his assets, didn't sign a statement confirming this, and did things that lowered the value of what he *did* list. The judge believed the man was deliberately trying to hide money and said he was guilty. The judge will decide the punishment later.
Key Facts
- •SIA Investment Industry (SIA) applied for committal of Gregory Robert Bryce (Mr. Bryce) for contempt of court.
- •Mr. Bryce allegedly breached a freezing injunction and associated disclosure orders.
- •The breaches related to insufficient asset disclosure, failure to swear an affidavit, and actions diminishing the value of his assets.
- •Mr. Bryce's late disclosure of assets, including a previously undisclosed Tenerife property, was deemed a deliberate attempt to file evidence at the last minute.
- •Mr. Bryce was found to have breached paragraphs 4(1), 8, and 10 of the Freezing Order.
- •The court considered evidence from previous proceedings where Mr. Bryce gave problematic and contradictory evidence.
Legal Principles
Elements of contempt: (1) Defendant knew the order's terms; (2) Defendant breached the order; (3) Defendant knew their actions constituted a breach.
Miles J in Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc and others v Rizwan Hussain [2024] 4 All E.R. 170; Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm)
Standard of proof in contempt cases is the criminal standard: beyond reasonable doubt.
Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt
"Notice" is equivalent to "service" in contempt proceedings; service must be proven to the criminal standard.
Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357
Lack of understanding of the order's requirements or intention to breach is not a defence, but relevant to sentencing.
Isbilen v Turk and others [2024] EWHC 505 (Ch)
Breaches of court orders, particularly disclosure orders, are serious and undermine the administration of justice.
Robert John McKendrick v FCA [2019] 4 WLR 65 (CA); The Law House Limited (in Administration) v Adams [2020] EWHC 2344 (Ch); JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2012] 1 WLR 350
Freezing orders must be clear and unequivocal and strictly construed.
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 10) [2015] UKSC 64
Outcomes
Mr. Bryce found in contempt of court.
Breaches of paragraphs 4(1), 8, and 10 of the Freezing Order were established beyond reasonable doubt. The court rejected Mr. Bryce's explanations and considered his past conduct and evidence-giving.
Sentence adjourned.
To allow Mr. Bryce to present mitigation.