Monopro Ltd v Central Hall Developments Ltd & Anor

Both respondents were in breach of undertakings and consent order for a significant period. The breaches were serious due to the nature of the obligations (insurance of a substantial civic building). The appropriate sanction is a fine, apportioned equally between the company and its director, with a term of imprisonment in default.

Parties: Claimant: Monopro Limited; First Respondent: Central Hall Developments Ltd; Second Respondent: Jagtar Singh
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 22 May 2017
Procedural Posture: Application for Committal / Judgment
Outcome: Fine imposed for contempt of court due to breach of undertakings and consent order.
Legal Topics: Breach of Undertaking, Consent Order, Insurance Obligations, Committal Proceedings, Mitigation, Sentencing

Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Contempt of Court Breach of Undertaking Consent Order Insurance Obligations Committal Proceedings Mitigation +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10

Parties

Monopro Limited

Claimant

Central Hall Developments Ltd

First Respondent

Jagtar Singh

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Committal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondents breached undertakings and consent order regarding insurance of property
2 Appropriate sanction for contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Fine imposed for contempt of court due to breach of undertakings and consent order.

Orders

Fine of £3,750 on Central Hall Developments Ltd
Fine of £3,750 on Jagtar Singh