Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd. v Melia & Ors [2009] EWHC 1114 (QB) (05 May 2009)

Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd. v Melia & Ors [2009] EWHC 1114 (QB) (05 May 2009)

The first, second, and sixth defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the disclosure orders of 9 February 2009. The first defendant's breaches were deliberate and serious, involving withholding of relevant information and untruthful affidavits. Immediate imprisonment was necessary to mark the seriousness of the contempt and ensure compliance with court orders.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1114
Parties
Claimant: Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd; First Defendant: Nigel Melia (also known as Nigel Jones); Second Defendant: Ready To Trade LLP; Sixth Defendant: Hawk Employment Services Limited (formerly ACE Employment Services Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Hearing of Committal Application
Outcome
First defendant committed to prison for 56 days for contempt of court; findings of contempt made against second and sixth defendants but no further order save as to costs.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Disclosure Orders, Enforcement of Court Orders, Fraud, Tracing of Assets
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Disclosure Orders Enforcement of Court Orders Fraud Tracing of Assets

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd

Claimant

Nigel Melia (also known as Nigel Jones)

First Defendant

Ready To Trade LLP

Second Defendant

Hawk Employment Services Limited (formerly ACE Employment Services Limited)

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Hearing of Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first, second, and sixth defendants are in contempt of court for failing to comply with disclosure orders dated 9 February 2009
  2. 2 Whether the breaches were deliberate and serious
  3. 3 What sanction is appropriate for the contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The first, second, and sixth defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the disclosure orders of 9 February 2009. The first defendant's breaches were deliberate and serious, involving withholding of relevant information and untruthful affidavits. Immediate imprisonment was necessary to mark the seriousness of the contempt and ensure compliance with court orders.

Court Disposition

First defendant committed to prison for 56 days for contempt of court; findings of contempt made against second and sixth defendants but no further order save as to costs.

Orders

  • First defendant (Nigel Melia) committed to prison for 56 days for contempt of court.
  • Findings of contempt of court made against second and sixth defendants (Ready To Trade LLP and Hawk Employment Services Limited), but no fine imposed due to lack of assets.