Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd & Ors

Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd & Ors

Breaches 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Inter Partes Freezing Order by Mr. Camilleri were admitted, were not technical or trivial, and justified the imposition of a substantial fine as punishment for past breaches, given that the order was ultimately complied with and there was no ongoing breach or demonstrated prejudice to the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Absolute Living Developments Limited (in liquidation, acting by its liquidator, Louise Mary Brittain); Defendant: DS7 Limited; Defendant: Andrew John Camilleri; Defendant: Charles Alexander Clunie Cunningham; Defendant: Gozon Limited; Defendant: EPG Manlet Limited; Defendant: UMI Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation); Defendant: Etruscan Manchester Limited; Defendant: Philip Wright (trading as Pixel Bomb); Defendant: Timothy Ackrel; Defendant: Alan Pierce; Defendant: 2380 Reversions Limited; Defendant: Universal Limited; Defendant: SC; Defendant: Stephanie Harriet Camilleri (also known as Stephanie Spencer)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (civil Contempt) / Judgment on Committal Application
Outcome
Application for committal partially allowed; certain breaches struck out as abuse of process; fine imposed for remaining breaches.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Contempt of Court, Disclosure Obligations, Asset Tracing, Sanctions for Breach of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Insolvency Commercial Law Freezing Orders Contempt of Court Disclosure Obligations Asset Tracing Sanctions for Breach of Court Orders

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

Parties

Absolute Living Developments Limited (in liquidation, acting by its liquidator, Louise Mary Brittain)

Claimant

DS7 Limited

Defendant

Andrew John Camilleri

Defendant

Charles Alexander Clunie Cunningham

Defendant

Gozon Limited

Defendant

EPG Manlet Limited

Defendant

UMI Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation)

Defendant

Etruscan Manchester Limited

Defendant

Philip Wright (trading as Pixel Bomb)

Defendant

Timothy Ackrel

Defendant

Alan Pierce

Defendant

2380 Reversions Limited

Defendant

Universal Limited

Defendant

SC

Defendant

Stephanie Harriet Camilleri (also known as Stephanie Spencer)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (civil Contempt) / Judgment on Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breaches of a freezing order by the second defendant constitute contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether certain breaches are technical/trivial and should be struck out as abuse of process
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sanction for admitted breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Breaches 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Inter Partes Freezing Order by Mr. Camilleri were admitted, were not technical or trivial, and justified the imposition of a substantial fine as punishment for past breaches, given that the order was ultimately complied with and there was no ongoing breach or demonstrated prejudice to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Application for committal partially allowed; certain breaches struck out as abuse of process; fine imposed for remaining breaches.

Orders

  • Breach 1 struck out as abuse of process.
  • Committal application for Breaches 2, 4, 5, and 7 allowed.