Farnsworth v Lacy And Ors [2013] EWHC 3487 (Ch) (10 June 2013)

Farnsworth v Lacy And Ors [2013] EWHC 3487 (Ch) (10 June 2013)

The first and fourth defendants deliberately breached an unambiguous consent order by causing the first defendant to work for the third defendant, knowing this was prohibited. The absence of a penal notice did not cause injustice as the defendants were legally advised and aware of the consequences. The breaches were serious and contumelious, warranting custodial sentences suspended for 18 months. The third defendant is fined for its role.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3487 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: F W Farnsworth; Defendant: Lacy; Defendant: Court-Johnston; Defendant: Third Defendant (company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Sentencing After Admitted Breach of Consent Order
Outcome
Application granted. Defendants found in contempt.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Restrictive Covenants, Injunctions, Consent Orders, Employment Contracts
Civil Procedure Employment Law Contempt of Court Restrictive Covenants Injunctions Consent Orders Employment Contracts

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

Parties

F W Farnsworth

Claimant

Lacy

Defendant

Court-Johnston

Defendant

Third Defendant (company)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Sentencing After Admitted Breach of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached the consent order and are in contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a penal notice invalidates enforcement by committal
  3. 3 Whether the consent order was unambiguous

Ratio Decidendi

The first and fourth defendants deliberately breached an unambiguous consent order by causing the first defendant to work for the third defendant, knowing this was prohibited. The absence of a penal notice did not cause injustice as the defendants were legally advised and aware of the consequences. The breaches were serious and contumelious, warranting custodial sentences suspended for 18 months. The third defendant is fined for its role.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Defendants found in contempt.

Orders

  • Six months imprisonment for first and fourth defendants, suspended for 18 months conditional on future compliance with court orders.
  • Fine of £15,000 imposed on the third defendant.