Therium (UK) Holdings Ltd v Brooke & Ors [2016] EWHC 2421 (Comm) (07 October 2016)

Therium (UK) Holdings Ltd v Brooke & Ors [2016] EWHC 2421 (Comm) (07 October 2016)

Mr Brooke was found to be in contempt of court because he had the ability, as sole shareholder and controlling mind of Cable Plus BV, to procure the transfer of the Claim Proceeds into court by giving unequivocal instructions to the corporate director, but deliberately failed to do so. His explanations were rejected as untruthful and unsupported by evidence. The court was sure that Mr Brooke knowingly and deliberately breached the relevant court orders, assisted Cable Plus BV in breaching them, and failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2421 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Therium (UK) Holdings Limited; First Defendant: Mr Guy Brooke; Second Defendant: Ms Emmy Ettema; Third Defendant: Cable Plus BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment Following Hearing of Committal Application
Outcome
Application for committal granted in part; Mr Brooke found in contempt of court on several grounds.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Freezing Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Litigation Funding, Breach of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Freezing Injunctions Asset Disclosure Litigation Funding Breach of Court Orders

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Therium (UK) Holdings Limited

Claimant

Mr Guy Brooke

First Defendant

Ms Emmy Ettema

Second Defendant

Cable Plus BV

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Guy Brooke was in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders to preserve and transfer litigation proceeds
  2. 2 Whether Mr Brooke assisted or procured Cable Plus BV to breach court orders
  3. 3 Whether Mr Brooke failed to comply with disclosure obligations under freezing and asset disclosure orders

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Brooke was found to be in contempt of court because he had the ability, as sole shareholder and controlling mind of Cable Plus BV, to procure the transfer of the Claim Proceeds into court by giving unequivocal instructions to the corporate director, but deliberately failed to do so. His explanations were rejected as untruthful and unsupported by evidence. The court was sure that Mr Brooke knowingly and deliberately breached the relevant court orders, assisted Cable Plus BV in breaching them, and failed to comply with disclosure obligations.

Court Disposition

Application for committal granted in part; Mr Brooke found in contempt of court on several grounds.

Orders

  • Mr Brooke found in contempt of court for failing to procure transfer of Claim Proceeds, for dealing with/disposal of Claim Proceeds in breach of court orders, for assisting/procuring Cable Plus BV to breach court orders, and for failing to comply with disclosure obligations.