Adm Rice Inc. v Corporacion Comercializadora De Granos Basicos SA

Adm Rice Inc. v Corporacion Comercializadora De Granos Basicos SA

The respondents, having been properly served with court orders containing penal notices, wilfully failed to comply with asset disclosure requirements, and the second and third respondents, as directors/officers, are responsible for the company's compliance; all are found in contempt of court.

Parties
Claimant: ADM Rice Inc.; Defendant and First Respondent: Corporacion Comercializadora de Granos Basicos SA (CORCOSA); Second Respondent: Enrique Jose Delgadillo Aguirre; Third Respondent: Vanessa Auxiliadora Delgadillo Sacasa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment
Outcome
Respondents found in contempt of court; second and third respondents committed to prison for 18 months; costs awarded to claimant on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Committal Proceedings, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Committal Proceedings Asset Disclosure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ADM Rice Inc.

Claimant

Corporacion Comercializadora de Granos Basicos SA (CORCOSA)

Defendant and First Respondent

Enrique Jose Delgadillo Aguirre

Second Respondent

Vanessa Auxiliadora Delgadillo Sacasa

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to comply with court orders requiring asset disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court
  3. 3 Whether the second and third respondents are directors/officers responsible for compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, having been properly served with court orders containing penal notices, wilfully failed to comply with asset disclosure requirements, and the second and third respondents, as directors/officers, are responsible for the company's compliance; all are found in contempt of court.

Court Disposition

Respondents found in contempt of court; second and third respondents committed to prison for 18 months; costs awarded to claimant on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Second and third respondents committed to prison for 18 months.
  • Respondents to pay claimant's costs on indemnity basis.