Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone & Ors [2015] EWHC 2831 (Ch) (09 October 2015)

Actial Farmaceutica LDA v De Simone & Ors [2015] EWHC 2831 (Ch) (09 October 2015)

The Professor was in persistent, deliberate contempt of paragraph 7 of the May Order, having failed to comply without justification. The application to vary the May Order was not made promptly, and neither limb of CPR 3.1(7) was satisfied. The Court of Appeal's findings precluded re-opening the issues. The undertakings in the May Order provided sufficient protection, and the Professor's attempt to impose further conditions was unjustified and an abuse of process.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2831 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Actial Farmaceutica LDA; First Defendant: Professor Claudio De Simone; Second Defendant: Mendes S. R. L; Third Defendant: Ms Florence Pryen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Contempt and Variation Applications / Post Interim Order, Applications for Committal and Variation
Outcome
Committal application granted; variation application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Variation of Orders, Committal for Contempt, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Interim Relief Variation of Orders Committal for Contempt Service of Process

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actial Farmaceutica LDA

Claimant

Professor Claudio De Simone

First Defendant

Mendes S. R. L

Second Defendant

Ms Florence Pryen

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt and Variation Applications / Post Interim Order, Applications for Committal and Variation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant was in contempt for failing to comply with the May Order
  2. 2 Whether the May Order should be varied to impose additional conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The Professor was in persistent, deliberate contempt of paragraph 7 of the May Order, having failed to comply without justification. The application to vary the May Order was not made promptly, and neither limb of CPR 3.1(7) was satisfied. The Court of Appeal's findings precluded re-opening the issues. The undertakings in the May Order provided sufficient protection, and the Professor's attempt to impose further conditions was unjustified and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Committal application granted; variation application dismissed.

Orders

  • Professor Claudio De Simone fined €50,000 for contempt of court.
  • Alternative service of committal application deemed good service.