Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors

Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors

The breaches of undertaking by Mr Percival and Liquidity were deliberate and culpable, warranting a fine. Mr Percival's apology was genuine and his means modest, justifying a lower fine. Liquidity's apology was not genuine and misleading evidence was given about its finances, justifying a higher fine and indemnity costs from 30 May 2013. Mr Tipper and Mr Foulsham, having successfully defended contempt allegations, are entitled to a proportion of their costs.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Back Office Limited; Defendant/respondent: Mr James Percival; Defendant/respondent: Mr Mateusz Rychly; Defendant/respondent: Mr Ricky Willars; Defendant/respondent: Mr Jonathan Tipper; Defendant/respondent: Mr James Foulsham; Defendant/respondent: Liquidity Group Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Penalty and Costs Determination After Finding of Contempt
Outcome
Fines imposed for contempt; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Undertaking, Costs, Sanctions, Employment Contract Breach, Fiduciary Duties
Civil Procedure Employment Law Contempt of Court Breach of Undertaking Costs Sanctions Employment Contract Breach Fiduciary Duties

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Back Office Limited

Claimant/applicant

Mr James Percival

Defendant/respondent

Mr Mateusz Rychly

Defendant/respondent

Mr Ricky Willars

Defendant/respondent

Mr Jonathan Tipper

Defendant/respondent

Mr James Foulsham

Defendant/respondent

Liquidity Group Solutions Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Penalty and Costs Determination After Finding of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What penalty is appropriate for contempt of court by Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited?
  2. 2 Should costs be awarded on an indemnity basis?
  3. 3 Are Mr Tipper and Mr Foulsham entitled to costs for successfully defending contempt allegations against them personally?

Ratio Decidendi

The breaches of undertaking by Mr Percival and Liquidity were deliberate and culpable, warranting a fine. Mr Percival's apology was genuine and his means modest, justifying a lower fine. Liquidity's apology was not genuine and misleading evidence was given about its finances, justifying a higher fine and indemnity costs from 30 May 2013. Mr Tipper and Mr Foulsham, having successfully defended contempt allegations, are entitled to a proportion of their costs.

Court Disposition

Fines imposed for contempt; costs orders made.

Orders

  • Mr Percival to pay a fine of £1,200.
  • Liquidity Group Solutions Limited to pay a fine of £5,000.