Jones v Hamilton (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 1216 (Ch) (24 May 2023)

Jones v Hamilton (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 1216 (Ch) (24 May 2023)

Mr Jones breached the 2017 Order by authorising payments from Andromeda's account to Verdoso, acting in contempt as he had power and knowledge to prevent the dissipation of frozen funds. His subjective belief or contractual obligations did not excuse non-compliance with clear court orders. The impossibility defence was rejected where Mr Jones had control or could have acted to prevent breaches.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1216 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Charles Jones; Defendant/applicants: Roderic Alexander Innes Hamilton (acting through his trustees in bankruptcy)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Contempt established in relation to specific breaches of the 2017 Order; other grounds not established.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Undertakings, Asset Preservation, False Statements, Bankruptcy
Civil Procedure Insolvency Equity Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Undertakings Asset Preservation False Statements +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Charles Jones

Claimant/respondent

Roderic Alexander Innes Hamilton (acting through his trustees in bankruptcy)

Defendant/applicants

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Jones breached freezing orders and undertakings given to the court
  2. 2 Whether Mr Jones made false statements in affidavits and pleadings
  3. 3 Whether Mr Jones acted in contempt of court by disposing of assets contrary to court orders

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Jones breached the 2017 Order by authorising payments from Andromeda's account to Verdoso, acting in contempt as he had power and knowledge to prevent the dissipation of frozen funds. His subjective belief or contractual obligations did not excuse non-compliance with clear court orders. The impossibility defence was rejected where Mr Jones had control or could have acted to prevent breaches.

Court Disposition

Contempt established in relation to specific breaches of the 2017 Order; other grounds not established.

Orders

  • Mr Jones found in contempt for authorising payment of €525,000 to Verdoso from Andromeda's account in breach of the 2017 Order.
  • Further directions for sentencing and costs to be determined.