Boys & Maugham (a firm) v Moore [2020] EWCA Civ 1860 (17 December 2020)

Boys & Maugham (a firm) v Moore [2020] EWCA Civ 1860 (17 December 2020)

The appellant was guilty of contempt for deliberate non-compliance with court orders requiring disclosure of financial information and documents. Procedural defects in the committal application (duplicity) did not cause injustice and were waived. The hearing was fair, reasonable adjustments were made, and the appellant had capacity and knowledge of the orders.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 1860
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Boys & Maugham (A Firm); Defendant/appellant: Gary Moore (also known as Gary Bullock)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Committal for Contempt / Appeal From County Court (order of Committal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Court Orders, Procedural Fairness, Reasonable Adjustments for Disability, Duplicity in Contempt Proceedings
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Enforcement of Court Orders Procedural Fairness Reasonable Adjustments for Disability Duplicity in Contempt Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boys & Maugham (A Firm)

Claimant/respondent

Gary Moore (also known as Gary Bullock)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Committal for Contempt / Appeal From County Court (order of Committal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders requiring disclosure of financial information and documents.
  2. 2 Whether the committal proceedings were procedurally fair, including reasonable adjustments for disability and compliance with procedural rules.
  3. 3 Whether duplicity in the framing of contempt counts invalidated the findings.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was guilty of contempt for deliberate non-compliance with court orders requiring disclosure of financial information and documents. Procedural defects in the committal application (duplicity) did not cause injustice and were waived. The hearing was fair, reasonable adjustments were made, and the appellant had capacity and knowledge of the orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; findings of contempt and suspended sentence upheld.