Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Ground 3 of the appeal (challenging findings of fact) failed as the judge's findings were supported by evidence and credibility assessments. Ground 1 (procedural unfairness in amending the committal application) succeeded as the amendment was made without proper notice or formulated application, violating procedural fairness in contempt proceedings. Ground 2 (legal effect of purported transfer as 'dealing') was dismissed except as encompassed by procedural unfairness. The appeal was allowed only on procedural grounds relating to Count 4; findings and sentence on Counts 1-3 remained undisturbed.

Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Barclays Bank PLC; Third Defendant: Scott Dylan; Third Defendant: David Samuel Antrobus; Third Defendant / Appellant: Jack Mason
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings and sentence on Counts 1-3 upheld; Count 4 discharged for procedural unfairness.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Committal Proceedings, Procedural Fairness, Findings of Fact, Appeals
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Committal Proceedings Procedural Fairness Findings of Fact Appeals

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant / Respondent

Scott Dylan

Third Defendant

David Samuel Antrobus

Third Defendant

Jack Mason

Third Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge's findings of fact on contempt were correct
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in amending the committal application
  3. 3 Whether actions constituted 'dealing' with assets under a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 3 of the appeal (challenging findings of fact) failed as the judge's findings were supported by evidence and credibility assessments. Ground 1 (procedural unfairness in amending the committal application) succeeded as the amendment was made without proper notice or formulated application, violating procedural fairness in contempt proceedings. Ground 2 (legal effect of purported transfer as 'dealing') was dismissed except as encompassed by procedural unfairness. The appeal was allowed only on procedural grounds relating to Count 4; findings and sentence on Counts 1-3 remained undisturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings and sentence on Counts 1-3 upheld; Count 4 discharged for procedural unfairness.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2 IV and 3 II of the judge’s order on liability discharged.
  • 22 month sentence of imprisonment on Counts 1-3 remains undisturbed.