Episo 4 Pilgrim Holding SARL & Anor v Timothy Davies

Episo 4 Pilgrim Holding SARL & Anor v Timothy Davies

Although there is a strong prima facie case that Mr Davies knowingly made false statements with intent to interfere with the administration of justice, the public interest and overriding objective do not justify granting permission for committal proceedings in the circumstances, given the corrections made, judicial findings, and lack of prejudice beyond costs.

Parties
Applicant/defendant: EPISO 4 PILGRIM HOLDING SARL; Applicant/defendant: TRISTAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LLP; Respondent/claimant: TIMOTHY DAVIES; Respondent/claimant: TB PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PLYMOUTH) LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial/contempt Application / Application for Permission to Pursue Committal Proceedings
Outcome
permission to pursue committal proceedings refused
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, False Statements, Security for Costs, Witness Evidence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Contempt of Court False Statements Security for Costs Witness Evidence

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EPISO 4 PILGRIM HOLDING SARL

Applicant/defendant

TRISTAN CAPITAL PARTNERS LLP

Applicant/defendant

TIMOTHY DAVIES

Respondent/claimant

TB PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PLYMOUTH) LIMITED

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/contempt Application / Application for Permission to Pursue Committal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a strong prima facie case that Mr Davies knowingly made false statements in witness statements verified by statement of truth
  2. 2 Whether the statements were made with intention of interfering with the due administration of justice
  3. 3 Whether it is in the public interest to grant permission to pursue committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Although there is a strong prima facie case that Mr Davies knowingly made false statements with intent to interfere with the administration of justice, the public interest and overriding objective do not justify granting permission for committal proceedings in the circumstances, given the corrections made, judicial findings, and lack of prejudice beyond costs.

Court Disposition

permission to pursue committal proceedings refused

Orders

  • Permission to bring committal proceedings against Mr Davies is refused.