Olympic Council of Asia v Novans Jets LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 276 (Comm) (10 February 2023)

Olympic Council of Asia v Novans Jets LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 276 (Comm) (10 February 2023)

The court held that the committal jurisdiction over directors or officers of a body corporate for breach of court orders is preserved under the substantive law of contempt, including in relation to LLPs and their functional equivalents of directors or officers. However, committal cannot be pursued for breach of the January Order due to the absence of a penal notice and the nature of the order (adjudicative disclosure). The April and May Orders, being coercive and bearing penal notices (albeit with defects), could in principle support committal, but only if the court is satisfied that no injustice arises from the defects. Mr Gringuz, as the functional equivalent of a director or officer of...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 276 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Olympic Council of Asia; First Defendant: Novans Jets LLP; Second Defendant: Novans Investment Ltd; Third Defendant: July Gringuz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Contempt/committal Application / Judgment on Application for Committal for Contempt of Court
Outcome
Application for committal against Mr Gringuz for breaches of the January Order dismissed; committal for breaches of the April and May Orders may proceed subject to the court's satisfaction regarding penal notice defects.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Committal Proceedings, Disclosure Orders, Corporate Liability, Directors' Liability
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court Committal Proceedings Disclosure Orders Corporate Liability Directors' Liability

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olympic Council of Asia

Claimant

Novans Jets LLP

First Defendant

Novans Investment Ltd

Second Defendant

July Gringuz

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt/committal Application / Judgment on Application for Committal for Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a committal application can be brought against a de facto director or officer of an LLP for breach of court orders made against the LLP
  2. 2 Whether the relevant orders (January, April, May) can be the subject of committal proceedings in the absence or defect of a penal notice
  3. 3 Whether the substantive law of contempt as regards directors or officers of corporate bodies was altered by the October 2020 amendments to CPR 81

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the committal jurisdiction over directors or officers of a body corporate for breach of court orders is preserved under the substantive law of contempt, including in relation to LLPs and their functional equivalents of directors or officers. However, committal cannot be pursued for breach of the January Order due to the absence of a penal notice and the nature of the order (adjudicative disclosure). The April and May Orders, being coercive and bearing penal notices (albeit with defects), could in principle support committal, but only if the court is satisfied that no injustice arises from the defects. Mr Gringuz, as the functional equivalent of a director or officer of...

Court Disposition

Application for committal against Mr Gringuz for breaches of the January Order dismissed; committal for breaches of the April and May Orders may proceed subject to the court's satisfaction regarding penal notice defects.

Orders

  • Application for committal in respect of the January Order refused.
  • Committal application in respect of the April and May Orders may proceed if the court is satisfied that no injustice arises from penal notice defects.