Universal Business Team PTY Ltd & Ors v Moffitt (aka Laurie Moffitt)

Universal Business Team PTY Ltd & Ors v Moffitt (aka Laurie Moffitt)

Mr Moffitt was found to have deliberately breached the Search Order, the Second Order, and the Third Order in multiple respects, including obstructing execution of the search, failing to provide required information, publicising the orders, and destroying evidence. The breaches were established to the criminal standard, save for part of Contempt 4 and Contempt 11. The breaches were serious, deliberate, and undermined the authority of the court, justifying immediate custodial sentences.

Parties
Claimant: Universal Business Team Pty Limited; Claimant: Onebus Limited; Claimant: X1; Claimant: X2; Claimant: X3; Claimant: X4; Claimant: X5; Defendant: Mr Laurence Roy Moffitt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court on all but part of Contempt 4 and Contempt 11; immediate custodial sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
Search Orders, Committal for Contempt, Procedural Compliance, Mitigation in Contempt Proceedings
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Search Orders Committal for Contempt Procedural Compliance Mitigation 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal Business Team Pty Limited

Claimant

Onebus Limited

Claimant

X1

Claimant

X2

Claimant

X3

Claimant

X4

Claimant

X5

Claimant

Mr Laurence Roy Moffitt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant, Mr Moffitt, is in contempt of court for breaches of three court orders relating to a search order
  2. 2 Whether procedural requirements for committal were met
  3. 3 Whether the breaches were deliberate and satisfy the criminal standard of proof

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Moffitt was found to have deliberately breached the Search Order, the Second Order, and the Third Order in multiple respects, including obstructing execution of the search, failing to provide required information, publicising the orders, and destroying evidence. The breaches were established to the criminal standard, save for part of Contempt 4 and Contempt 11. The breaches were serious, deliberate, and undermined the authority of the court, justifying immediate custodial sentences.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court on all but part of Contempt 4 and Contempt 11; immediate custodial sentences imposed.

Orders

  • Twelve months' imprisonment for Contempts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10, to run concurrently.
  • Ten months' imprisonment for Contempts 4, 12, and 13, to run concurrently with other sentences.