Therium (UK) Holdings Ltd v Brooke & Ors

Therium (UK) Holdings Ltd v Brooke & Ors

Mr Brooke, as sole shareholder and controlling mind of Cable Plus, had the ability to procure compliance with court orders by instructing the corporate director. He knowingly and deliberately failed to do so, disposed of or dealt with the Claim Proceeds in breach of freezing orders, assisted Cable Plus in breaching orders, and failed to disclose assets and information as required. His explanations were unconvincing, unsupported, and contradicted by credible evidence. The contempts were proved to the criminal standard except for allegations relating to undisclosed assets and third-party funding.

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
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Committal Application
Outcome
Contempt proved in all respects except allegations relating to undisclosed assets and third-party funding.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Orders, Litigation Funding, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Disclosure Orders Litigation Funding Professional Negligence

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

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Brooke failed to comply with court orders to preserve and disclose assets (Claim Proceeds)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Brooke disposed of or dealt with the Claim Proceeds in breach of freezing orders
  3. 3 Whether Mr Brooke assisted or procured Cable Plus to breach court orders

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Brooke, as sole shareholder and controlling mind of Cable Plus, had the ability to procure compliance with court orders by instructing the corporate director. He knowingly and deliberately failed to do so, disposed of or dealt with the Claim Proceeds in breach of freezing orders, assisted Cable Plus in breaching orders, and failed to disclose assets and information as required. His explanations were unconvincing, unsupported, and contradicted by credible evidence. The contempts were proved to the criminal standard except for allegations relating to undisclosed assets and third-party funding.

Court Disposition

Contempt proved in all respects except allegations relating to undisclosed assets and third-party funding.

Orders

  • Mr Brooke found in contempt for failing to cause or procure Cable Plus to pay €3,801,339.15 into court.
  • Mr Brooke found in contempt for disposing of or dealing with the Claim Proceeds in breach of court orders.