Olympic Council of Asia v Novans Jets LLP & Ors

Olympic Council of Asia v Novans Jets LLP & Ors

The court held that it was not open to OCA to pursue committal against Mr Gringuz under the Body Corporate Provision due to the absence of an appropriate penal notice and the circumstances of the orders. The evidence did not establish, to the criminal standard, contempt under the Seaward jurisdiction, as there was no positive act of wilful interference. The committal application against Novans Investments Ltd was not determined due to procedural deficiencies and unresolved factual issues.

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
Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Judgment After Hearing of Committal Application
Outcome
Committal application dismissed against Mr Gringuz and not determined against Novans Investments Ltd
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Committal Proceedings, Disclosure Orders, Freezing Injunctions, Corporate Liability
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court Committal Proceedings Disclosure Orders Freezing Injunctions Corporate 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 4 Authorities cited 14 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

Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Judgment After Hearing of Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a committal application can be brought against Mr Gringuz for alleged breaches of court orders made against Novans Jets LLP
  2. 2 Whether the relevant orders were enforceable by committal given the presence or absence of penal notices
  3. 3 Whether Mr Gringuz is a 'director or other officer' for the purposes of committal under the relevant rules

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was not open to OCA to pursue committal against Mr Gringuz under the Body Corporate Provision due to the absence of an appropriate penal notice and the circumstances of the orders. The evidence did not establish, to the criminal standard, contempt under the Seaward jurisdiction, as there was no positive act of wilful interference. The committal application against Novans Investments Ltd was not determined due to procedural deficiencies and unresolved factual issues.

Court Disposition

Committal application dismissed against Mr Gringuz and not determined against Novans Investments Ltd

Orders

  • No order for committal against Mr Gringuz
  • No order for committal against Novans Investments Ltd