Bond Turner Limited v Patrick Maginn
[2024] EWHC 1521 (KB)
nChain Holding AG (formerly HEH Holding AG) v Christen Ager-Hanssen
3 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1230 (Comm)
High Court
A former CEO was found guilty of ignoring court orders to give back secret company information and equipment. Because he didn't show up to court and didn't give a good reason, the judge sentenced him to 10 months in jail, stating that ignoring court orders regarding such serious matters would result in significant punishment.
Key Facts
- •nChain Holding AG (Claimant) sought committal of Christen Ager-Hanssen (Defendant) for contempt of court.
- •Defendant was the former CEO of nChain, privy to confidential information.
- •Defendant published confidential information in a report ('Fairway Brief') on the X platform after termination.
- •Court orders (October 2023 and January 2024) required Defendant to remove the report, disclose information, and surrender devices.
- •Defendant did not comply with court orders, failed to attend hearings, and is believed to be outside the jurisdiction (Norway).
- •Claimant successfully applied for summary judgment on substantive claims before this committal hearing.
Legal Principles
Whether to proceed in a defendant's absence requires careful consideration of factors such as service, notice, reason for non-appearance, waiver of right to be present, potential prejudice, and the overriding objective.
Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam)
To prove contempt, the court must be sure beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) the Defendant knew the terms of the breached order; (2) the Defendant acted in breach of or failed to comply with the order; and (3) the Defendant knew the facts making his conduct a breach.
Navigator Equities v Deripaska [2024] EWCA Civ 268
Deliberate and substantial breaches of court orders, particularly those involving confidential information or freezing orders, are serious and typically merit custodial sentences.
JSC BTA Bank v Roman Vladimirovich Solodchenko [2011] EWCA Civ 1241 and The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Limited v Hardiman [2024] EWHC 787 (KB)
Outcomes
The court proceeded in the Defendant's absence, finding him in contempt of court.
The Defendant was properly served, had sufficient notice, provided no adequate reason for non-appearance, and waived his right to be present. An adjournment would likely be futile, and the Claimant would be prejudiced by delay.
Defendant sentenced to 10 months imprisonment (concurrent sentences of 10 months and 4 months).
Serious nature of breaches, deliberate and continuing non-compliance, significant consequences for the Claimant, lack of mitigation, and the need for both punitive and coercive elements justified immediate custody.
Similar Cases
The Chief Constable of Kent Police & Anor v Daryll Sturgess Taylor
[2024] EWHC 813 (KB)
Say Chong Lim & Ors v Chee Kong Ong (a bankrupt)
[2024] EWHC 373 (Ch)
SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
Ignite International Brands (UK) Limited & Anor v Inpero Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 220 (KB)