Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan & Ors [2024] EWHC 2776 (Ch) (30 October 2024)

Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan & Ors [2024] EWHC 2776 (Ch) (30 October 2024)

The Respondents deliberately and jointly breached freezing orders by transferring valuable group assets offshore in a planned enterprise, constituting a serious attack on the administration of justice. The breaches were so serious that only immediate custodial sentences were appropriate, with no significant mitigation or grounds for suspension. Costs were awarded on an indemnity and joint and several basis due to the Respondents' conduct.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2776 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Applicant: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant / Respondent: Scott Dylan; Defendant / Respondent: David Samuel Antrobus; Defendant / Respondent: Jack Mason
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (committal Applications) / Sentencing Judgment Following Liability Finding
Outcome
Respondents found in contempt of court; immediate custodial sentences imposed; indemnity costs awarded jointly and severally.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Asset Dissipation, Sanctions for Breach of Injunction, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Banking Law Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Asset Dissipation Sanctions for Breach of Injunction Costs (indemnity Basis)

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant / Applicant

Scott Dylan

Defendant / Respondent

David Samuel Antrobus

Defendant / Respondent

Jack Mason

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (committal Applications) / Sentencing Judgment Following Liability Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents breached freezing orders by transferring assets out of the jurisdiction
  2. 2 Appropriate sanction for contempt of court in the context of deliberate breaches of freezing orders
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity and joint and several basis

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents deliberately and jointly breached freezing orders by transferring valuable group assets offshore in a planned enterprise, constituting a serious attack on the administration of justice. The breaches were so serious that only immediate custodial sentences were appropriate, with no significant mitigation or grounds for suspension. Costs were awarded on an indemnity and joint and several basis due to the Respondents' conduct.

Court Disposition

Respondents found in contempt of court; immediate custodial sentences imposed; indemnity costs awarded jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Scott Dylan: 22 months' imprisonment on each of Counts 1 and 2, concurrent; unconditional release after 11 months; no suspension.
  • David Antrobus: 22 months' imprisonment on each of Counts 1, 2, 3 and 3 months for Count 4, concurrent; unconditional release after 11 months; no suspension.