SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Ltd [2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm) (31 October 2024)

SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Ltd [2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm) (31 October 2024)

Mr Bryce knowingly breached paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Freezing Order by failing to provide full disclosure of assets and failing to swear and serve an affidavit within the required timeframe. He further breached paragraph 4(1) by diminishing the value of Saffron House through additional charges. These breaches were deliberate, serious, and not excused by any reasonable explanation. The breaches are admitted and proved to the criminal standard.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2774 (Comm)
Parties
Applicant/claimant in Arbitration: SIA Investment Industry; Respondent/defendant in Arbitration: Pardus Wealth Limited; Respondent/defendant in Arbitration: Gregory Robert Bryce
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (contempt Application) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Outcome Pending Sanction Hearing
Outcome
Liability for contempt established against Mr Bryce for breaches of paragraphs 8, 10, and 4(1) of the Freezing Order. Sanction to be determined at subsequent hearing.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Committal for Contempt, Bankruptcy, Policing Orders
Civil Procedure Arbitration Injunctions Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Committal for Contempt Bankruptcy +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SIA Investment Industry

Applicant/claimant in Arbitration

Pardus Wealth Limited

Respondent/defendant in Arbitration

Gregory Robert Bryce

Respondent/defendant in Arbitration

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (contempt Application) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Outcome Pending Sanction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Bryce breached the Freezing Order by failing to disclose assets as required
  2. 2 Whether Mr Bryce breached the Freezing Order by failing to swear and serve an affidavit as required
  3. 3 Whether Mr Bryce breached the Freezing Order by diminishing the value of assets (Saffron House)

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Bryce knowingly breached paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Freezing Order by failing to provide full disclosure of assets and failing to swear and serve an affidavit within the required timeframe. He further breached paragraph 4(1) by diminishing the value of Saffron House through additional charges. These breaches were deliberate, serious, and not excused by any reasonable explanation. The breaches are admitted and proved to the criminal standard.

Court Disposition

Liability for contempt established against Mr Bryce for breaches of paragraphs 8, 10, and 4(1) of the Freezing Order. Sanction to be determined at subsequent hearing.

Orders

  • Mr Bryce found in contempt of court for breaches of the Freezing Order as specified.
  • Sanction hearing to be listed for determination of penalty.