Crystalmews Ltd v Metterick & Ors [2006] EWHC 2653 (Ch) (25 October 2006)

Crystalmews Ltd v Metterick & Ors [2006] EWHC 2653 (Ch) (25 October 2006)

Both Mr and Mrs Metterick were found to have had knowledge of the Freezing Orders and to have breached them by withdrawing and dissipating assets, constituting serious contempts of court. The Orders were sufficiently clear to found contempt, and Mrs Metterick's evidence denying knowledge was rejected as untruthful.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 2653 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Crystalmews Limited (In liquidation); First Defendant: Lee Metterick; Second Defendant: Andrew Metterick; Third Defendant: Ricky Metterick; Fourth Defendant: Juliet Metterick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application in Company Liquidation Proceedings / Judgment on Liability for Contempt of Court
Outcome
Both Mr and Mrs Metterick found guilty of contempt of court for breaches of the Freezing Orders. Penalty to be determined at a later hearing.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Director Duties, VAT Fraud, Asset Dissipation
Insolvency Civil Procedure Company Law Freezing Injunctions Contempt of Court Director Duties VAT Fraud Asset Dissipation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crystalmews Limited (In liquidation)

Claimant

Lee Metterick

First Defendant

Andrew Metterick

Second Defendant

Ricky Metterick

Third Defendant

Juliet Metterick

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application in Company Liquidation Proceedings / Judgment on Liability for Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr and Mrs Metterick breached the First and Second Freezing Orders
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Metterick had knowledge of the Freezing Orders at the time of the asset withdrawals
  3. 3 Whether the Orders were sufficiently clear to found contempt proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Both Mr and Mrs Metterick were found to have had knowledge of the Freezing Orders and to have breached them by withdrawing and dissipating assets, constituting serious contempts of court. The Orders were sufficiently clear to found contempt, and Mrs Metterick's evidence denying knowledge was rejected as untruthful.

Court Disposition

Both Mr and Mrs Metterick found guilty of contempt of court for breaches of the Freezing Orders. Penalty to be determined at a later hearing.

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr and Mrs Metterick are in contempt of court for breaches of the First and Second Freezing Orders.
  • Penalty hearing adjourned to a later date.