GML International Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Harfield [2020] EWHC 2667 (QB) (15 September 2020)

GML International Ltd & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Harfield [2020] EWHC 2667 (QB) (15 September 2020)

The defendant was aware of the freezing order and its requirements, was properly served, and deliberately failed to comply with asset disclosure and affidavit obligations. The breaches are total, deliberate, and without excuse. The contempt is proven to the criminal standard. The seriousness of the contempt warrants immediate imprisonment for nine months.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2667 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: GML International Ltd; Claimant: Stefan Paul Pinter; Claimant: Trident Fiduciaries (I.O.M.) Ltd (as trustees of the Berry Revocable Trust); Defendant: Jonathan Henry Martyn Harfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Application for Committal and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court and sentenced to immediate imprisonment for nine months.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Freezing Injunctions Asset Disclosure Committal for Contempt Enforcement of Judgments

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

Parties

GML International Ltd

Claimant

Stefan Paul Pinter

Claimant

Trident Fiduciaries (I.O.M.) Ltd (as trustees of the Berry Revocable Trust)

Claimant

Jonathan Henry Martyn Harfield

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Application for Committal and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is in contempt of court for failing to comply with asset disclosure and affidavit requirements under a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the court should proceed in the defendant's absence
  3. 3 What sanction is appropriate for the contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was aware of the freezing order and its requirements, was properly served, and deliberately failed to comply with asset disclosure and affidavit obligations. The breaches are total, deliberate, and without excuse. The contempt is proven to the criminal standard. The seriousness of the contempt warrants immediate imprisonment for nine months.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court and sentenced to immediate imprisonment for nine months.

Orders

  • Warrant for committal of Jonathan Henry Martyn Harfield for nine months' imprisonment for contempt of court.