Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors [2013] EWHC 3776 (QB) (03 December 2013)

Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors [2013] EWHC 3776 (QB) (03 December 2013)

The breaches of undertaking by Mr Percival and Liquidity were deliberate and culpable, warranting punitive fines. Liquidity's misleading evidence on its financial position justified indemnity costs from 30 May 2013. Mr Tipper and Mr Foulsham, having successfully defended personal contempt allegations, were entitled to a proportion of their costs.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3776 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Back Office Limited; Defendant/respondent: Mr James Percival; Defendant/respondent: Mr Mateusz Rychly; Defendant/respondent: Mr Ricky Willars; Defendant/respondent: Mr Jonathan Tipper; Defendant/respondent: Mr James Foulsham; Defendant/respondent: Liquidity Group Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application in Civil Proceedings / Penalty and Costs Determination Following Finding of Contempt
Outcome
Fines imposed on Mr Percival and Liquidity; costs orders made as specified.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Undertaking, Costs, Employment Covenants, Sanctions
Civil Procedure Employment Law Contempt of Court Breach of Undertaking Costs Employment Covenants Sanctions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Back Office Limited

Claimant/applicant

Mr James Percival

Defendant/respondent

Mr Mateusz Rychly

Defendant/respondent

Mr Ricky Willars

Defendant/respondent

Mr Jonathan Tipper

Defendant/respondent

Mr James Foulsham

Defendant/respondent

Liquidity Group Solutions Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application in Civil Proceedings / Penalty and Costs Determination Following Finding of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What penalty is appropriate for contempt of court by breach of undertaking?
  2. 2 What costs orders should be made following findings of contempt and acquittal?

Ratio Decidendi

The breaches of undertaking by Mr Percival and Liquidity were deliberate and culpable, warranting punitive fines. Liquidity's misleading evidence on its financial position justified indemnity costs from 30 May 2013. Mr Tipper and Mr Foulsham, having successfully defended personal contempt allegations, were entitled to a proportion of their costs.

Court Disposition

Fines imposed on Mr Percival and Liquidity; costs orders made as specified.

Orders

  • Mr Percival to pay a fine of £1,200.
  • Liquidity Group Solutions Limited to pay a fine of £5,000.