Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

The Respondents deliberately and jointly breached freezing orders by transferring valuable assets offshore, frustrating the administration of justice. The breaches were serious, planned, and ongoing, with no genuine remorse or cooperation. Only immediate custodial sentences, not suspension, are appropriate. Indemnity costs are justified due to the Respondents' conduct before and during proceedings.

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
14 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (civil Freezing Orders) / Sentencing Judgment
Outcome
Respondents found in contempt of court and sentenced to immediate imprisonment; indemnity costs awarded to Claimant.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Asset Dissipation, Sanctions for Breach of Injunction, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Civil Procedure Banking Law Injunctions 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 15 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 (civil Freezing Orders) / Sentencing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sanction for deliberate breaches of freezing orders by the Respondents?
  2. 2 Should the sentences be suspended or immediate?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate costs order in light of the Respondents' conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents deliberately and jointly breached freezing orders by transferring valuable assets offshore, frustrating the administration of justice. The breaches were serious, planned, and ongoing, with no genuine remorse or cooperation. Only immediate custodial sentences, not suspension, are appropriate. Indemnity costs are justified due to the Respondents' conduct before and during proceedings.

Court Disposition

Respondents found in contempt of court and sentenced to immediate imprisonment; indemnity costs awarded to Claimant.

Orders

  • Scott Dylan: 22 months' imprisonment on each of Counts 1 and 2, concurrent; unconditional release after 11 months; no suspension; possible remission up to 12 months if assets returned.
  • 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; possible remission up to 12 months if assets returned.