Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone & Ors

Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone & Ors

The Professor was in deliberate and persistent contempt of paragraph 7 of the May Order, having failed to comply without justification. The Variation Application was not made promptly and did not satisfy the requirements for variation under CPR 3.1(7). The existing undertakings provided sufficient protection, and the Professor's attempt to impose further conditions was an abuse of process.

Parties
Claimant: Actial Farmaceutica LDA; First Defendant: Professor Claudio De Simone; Second Defendant: Mendes S. R. L; Third Defendant: Ms Florence Pryen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Interlocutory Judgment on Committal and Variation Applications
Outcome
The committal application is granted; the Professor is fined for contempt. The variation application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Variation of Court Orders, Interim Relief, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Variation of Court Orders Interim Relief Service of Process

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

Parties

Actial Farmaceutica LDA

Claimant

Professor Claudio De Simone

First Defendant

Mendes S. R. L

Second Defendant

Ms Florence Pryen

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Interlocutory Judgment on Committal and Variation Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant is in contempt of court for failing to comply with paragraph 7 of the May Order
  2. 2 Whether the May Order should be varied to impose additional conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The Professor was in deliberate and persistent contempt of paragraph 7 of the May Order, having failed to comply without justification. The Variation Application was not made promptly and did not satisfy the requirements for variation under CPR 3.1(7). The existing undertakings provided sufficient protection, and the Professor's attempt to impose further conditions was an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

The committal application is granted; the Professor is fined for contempt. The variation application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The Professor is fined €50,000 for contempt of court.
  • Alternative service of the committal application is deemed good service.