Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC) (28 February 2013)

Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC) (28 February 2013)

The court held that a strong prima facie case of contempt was not established because the evidence, primarily from Mr Isaacs, did not show beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Berry or Mr Death knew their statements were false or were reckless as to their truth. The evidence suggested, at most, carelessness or optimism, which is insufficient for contempt. Additionally, pursuing contempt proceedings would be wholly disproportionate given the sums involved and the likely costs and court time. The application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 347 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Berry Piling Systems Limited; Defendant/applicant: Sheer Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Bring Committal Proceedings (contempt of Court) / Permission Hearing Before High Court (tcc)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, False Statements, Statements of Truth, Adjudication Enforcement, Stay of Execution, Company Insolvency
Civil Procedure Construction Law Contempt of Court False Statements Statements of Truth Adjudication Enforcement Stay of Execution Company Insolvency

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berry Piling Systems Limited

Claimant

Sheer Projects Limited

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Bring Committal Proceedings (contempt of Court) / Permission Hearing Before High Court (tcc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a strong prima facie case that Mr Berry and Mr Death made false statements in witness statements verified by statement of truth without honest belief in their truth, amounting to contempt of court under CPR 32.14.
  2. 2 Whether the application for permission to bring committal proceedings complies with Practice Direction 81 and is proportionate and in the public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a strong prima facie case of contempt was not established because the evidence, primarily from Mr Isaacs, did not show beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Berry or Mr Death knew their statements were false or were reckless as to their truth. The evidence suggested, at most, carelessness or optimism, which is insufficient for contempt. Additionally, pursuing contempt proceedings would be wholly disproportionate given the sums involved and the likely costs and court time. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to bring committal proceedings for contempt is refused.