Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd. v Melia & Ors

Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd. v Melia & Ors

The first, second, and sixth defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the disclosure orders of 9 February 2009. The breaches were deliberate and serious, particularly by the first defendant, who failed to make full disclosure and gave untruthful affidavits. Immediate imprisonment was necessary to mark the seriousness of the contempt and ensure compliance with court orders.

Parties
Claimant: Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd; First Defendant: Nigel Melia (also known as Nigel Jones); Second Defendant: Ready To Trade LLP; Sixth Defendant: Hawk Employment Services Limited (formerly ACE Employment Services Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (civil/fraud Proceedings) / Judgment on Committal and Fine for Contempt
Outcome
First defendant committed to prison for contempt; findings of contempt against second and sixth defendants; no fine imposed due to lack of assets; costs to be paid by all three defendants on indemnity basis (subject to further submissions).
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Disclosure Obligations, Committal for Contempt, Tracing of Assets, Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Law Fraud Contempt of Court Disclosure Obligations Committal for Contempt Tracing of Assets Fraudulent Misrepresentation

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds TSB Commercial Finance Ltd

Claimant

Nigel Melia (also known as Nigel Jones)

First Defendant

Ready To Trade LLP

Second Defendant

Hawk Employment Services Limited (formerly ACE Employment Services Limited)

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (civil/fraud Proceedings) / Judgment on Committal and Fine for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first, second, and sixth defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with disclosure orders
  2. 2 Whether the breaches were deliberate and serious
  3. 3 What sanction should be imposed for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The first, second, and sixth defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the disclosure orders of 9 February 2009. The breaches were deliberate and serious, particularly by the first defendant, who failed to make full disclosure and gave untruthful affidavits. Immediate imprisonment was necessary to mark the seriousness of the contempt and ensure compliance with court orders.

Court Disposition

First defendant committed to prison for contempt; findings of contempt against second and sixth defendants; no fine imposed due to lack of assets; costs to be paid by all three defendants on indemnity basis (subject to further submissions).

Orders

  • First defendant (Nigel Melia) committed to prison for 56 days for contempt of court.
  • Findings of contempt of court against second defendant (Ready To Trade LLP) and sixth defendant (Hawk Employment Services Limited), but no fine imposed.