Stobart Group Ltd & Ors v Elliott [2013] EWHC 797 (QB) (11 April 2013)

Stobart Group Ltd & Ors v Elliott [2013] EWHC 797 (QB) (11 April 2013)

Permission to bring contempt proceedings will only be granted where there is a strong prima facie case that a false statement was made knowingly or recklessly, that it was likely to interfere with the course of justice, and where the public interest and proportionality support such proceedings. In this case, most of Mr Elliott's allegations failed to meet this threshold, either for lack of evidence, prior adjudication, or disproportionality. Only a limited number of allegations (notably Allegations 3, 4, and 8) were found to meet the prima facie threshold, subject to further consideration of proportionality and public interest.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 797
Parties
Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033): Stobart Group Limited; Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033): Eddie Stobart Limited; Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033): WA Developments International Limited; Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033): William Andrew Tinkler; Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033): William Stobart; Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033): Trevor Howarth; Defendant (2 MA 90133) / Claimant (3 MA 90033): Peter Elliott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications: Permission for Contempt Proceedings and Strike Out of Counterclaim
Outcome
Permission to bring contempt proceedings refused on most allegations; granted on limited allegations (notably Allegations 3, 4, and 8) subject to further consideration. Application to strike out counterclaim stood over. Directions for inquiry into cross-undertaking losses given.
Legal Topics
Permission for Committal Applications, False Statements in Witness Evidence, Strike Out of Counterclaim, Proportionality in Contempt Proceedings, Public Interest in Contempt Applications
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Permission for Committal Applications False Statements in Witness Evidence Strike Out of Counterclaim Proportionality in Contempt Proceedings Public Interest in Contempt Applications

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stobart Group Limited

Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033)

Eddie Stobart Limited

Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033)

WA Developments International Limited

Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033)

William Andrew Tinkler

Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033)

William Stobart

Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033)

Trevor Howarth

Claimant (2 MA 90133) / Defendant (3 MA 90033)

Peter Elliott

Defendant (2 MA 90133) / Claimant (3 MA 90033)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications: Permission for Contempt Proceedings and Strike Out of Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to bring contempt proceedings for alleged false statements in witness evidence
  2. 2 Whether the counterclaim should be struck out as an abuse of process or for lack of merit

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to bring contempt proceedings will only be granted where there is a strong prima facie case that a false statement was made knowingly or recklessly, that it was likely to interfere with the course of justice, and where the public interest and proportionality support such proceedings. In this case, most of Mr Elliott's allegations failed to meet this threshold, either for lack of evidence, prior adjudication, or disproportionality. Only a limited number of allegations (notably Allegations 3, 4, and 8) were found to meet the prima facie threshold, subject to further consideration of proportionality and public interest.

Court Disposition

Permission to bring contempt proceedings refused on most allegations; granted on limited allegations (notably Allegations 3, 4, and 8) subject to further consideration. Application to strike out counterclaim stood over. Directions for inquiry into cross-undertaking losses given.

Orders

  • Permission to bring contempt proceedings refused on the majority of allegations.
  • Permission granted to proceed on Allegations 3, 4, and 8, subject to proportionality and public interest.