ADM International SARL v Grain House International SA & Anor

ADM International SARL v Grain House International SA & Anor

The appeal succeeded in part: the court held that 'value' in the asset disclosure order meant market value, not unencumbered value, so GHI and Mr Boutgueray were not in contempt for failing to disclose encumbrances (Contempt 3). Director liability for civil contempt survives the repeal of CPR 81.4(3) as a matter of substantive law. The findings of contempt for other breaches (Contempts 1, 2, 4, 5) and sentences were upheld, with sentences adjusted to reflect the partial success of the appeal.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: ADM International SARL; Defendant/appellant: Grain House International S. A.; Defendant/appellant: Elhachmi Boutgueray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings of contempt quashed for Contempt 3; sentences reduced accordingly; other findings and sentences upheld.
Legal Topics
Asset Disclosure Orders, Freezing Orders, Director Liability, Sentencing for Contempt
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Arbitration Enforcement Asset Disclosure Orders Freezing Orders Director Liability Sentencing for Contempt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADM International SARL

Claimant/respondent

Grain House International S. A.

Defendant/appellant

Elhachmi Boutgueray

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether GHI and Mr Boutgueray were in contempt of court for breaches of asset disclosure and freezing orders
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'value' in asset disclosure orders
  3. 3 Liability of directors for corporate contempt post-CPR 81.4(3) revision

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded in part: the court held that 'value' in the asset disclosure order meant market value, not unencumbered value, so GHI and Mr Boutgueray were not in contempt for failing to disclose encumbrances (Contempt 3). Director liability for civil contempt survives the repeal of CPR 81.4(3) as a matter of substantive law. The findings of contempt for other breaches (Contempts 1, 2, 4, 5) and sentences were upheld, with sentences adjusted to reflect the partial success of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings of contempt quashed for Contempt 3; sentences reduced accordingly; other findings and sentences upheld.

Orders

  • Finding of contempt for Contempt 3 quashed for GHI and Mr Boutgueray.
  • Fine for GHI reduced to £50,000.