Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2024] EWHC 2781 (Comm) (01 October 2024)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2024] EWHC 2781 (Comm) (01 October 2024)

Permission to amend the committal application is granted only in respect of certain allegations (paragraphs 1-14, excluding footnote (i), and paragraphs 15-18, and breach 1 of the freezing order allegations as particularised), as these are sufficiently pleaded or capable of being tried. All other proposed amendments are refused for want of particularity, reliance on issues to be determined in foreign proceedings, or because they relate to events outside the relevant period. The claimant's application to set aside the previous order is certified as totally without merit, as it was an impermissible attempt to re-argue matters already decided and failed to comply with clear procedural...

Citation
[2024] EWHC 2781 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd; Defendant: John Forster Emmott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (committal Proceedings) Within Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Applications: Defendant's Strike Out Application, Claimant's Application to Amend Committal Notice, and Claimant's Application to Set Aside Previous Order
Outcome
Permission to amend committal application granted in part; remainder of amendments refused; committal application struck out except as permitted; claimant's application to set aside previous order certified as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Committal Applications, Procedural Compliance, Particularisation of Allegations, Amendment of Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Legal Aid in Contempt Proceedings
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal Applications Procedural Compliance Particularisation of Allegations Amendment of Pleadings Abuse of Process Legal Aid in Contempt Proceedings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (committal Proceedings) Within Civil Litigation / Interlocutory Applications: Defendant's Strike Out Application, Claimant's Application to Amend Committal Notice, and Claimant's Application to Set Aside Previous Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's committal application should be struck out for procedural defects and non-compliance with court orders
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be granted permission to amend the committal application notice
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's application to set aside a previous order should be certified as totally without merit

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the committal application is granted only in respect of certain allegations (paragraphs 1-14, excluding footnote (i), and paragraphs 15-18, and breach 1 of the freezing order allegations as particularised), as these are sufficiently pleaded or capable of being tried. All other proposed amendments are refused for want of particularity, reliance on issues to be determined in foreign proceedings, or because they relate to events outside the relevant period. The claimant's application to set aside the previous order is certified as totally without merit, as it was an impermissible attempt to re-argue matters already decided and failed to comply with clear procedural...

Court Disposition

Permission to amend committal application granted in part; remainder of amendments refused; committal application struck out except as permitted; claimant's application to set aside previous order certified as totally without merit.

Orders

  • Permission to amend committal application in terms of paragraphs 1-14 (excluding footnote (i)), 15-18, and breach 1 of freezing order allegations (paragraphs 22-23) granted.
  • Permission to amend in relation to all other alleged breaches refused.