Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors [2013] EWHC 1385 (QB) (23 May 2013)

Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors [2013] EWHC 1385 (QB) (23 May 2013)

Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited are guilty of contempt because Mr Percival and Mr Richardson, as agents of Liquidity, solicited prohibited clients in breach of undertakings, and the company is strictly liable for their acts. There was insufficient evidence that Mr Foulsham or Mr Tipper authorised...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1385
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Back Office Limited; Defendant/respondent: Mr James Percival; Defendant: Mr Mateusz Rychly; Defendant: Mr Ricky Willars; Defendant/respondent: Mr Jonathan Tipper; Defendant/respondent: Mr James Foulsham; Defendant/respondent: Liquidity Group Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (committal/fine) for Breach of Undertakings in Civil Proceedings / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited found in contempt of court; applications against Mr Foulsham and Mr Tipper dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Undertaking, Solicitation of Clients, Vicarious Liability, Directors' Liability, Standard of Proof in Contempt, Corporate Liability for Contempt
Employment Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Breach of Undertaking Solicitation of Clients Vicarious Liability Directors' Liability Standard of Proof in Contempt +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Back Office Limited

Claimant/applicant

Mr James Percival

Defendant/respondent

Mr Mateusz Rychly

Defendant

Mr Ricky Willars

Defendant

Mr Jonathan Tipper

Defendant/respondent

Mr James Foulsham

Defendant/respondent

Liquidity Group Solutions Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (committal/fine) for Breach of Undertakings in Civil Proceedings / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited breached undertakings by soliciting prohibited clients
  2. 2 Whether Mr Foulsham and Mr Tipper are personally liable for contempt as directors
  3. 3 Whether the acts of employees/agents render the company liable for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited are guilty of contempt because Mr Percival and Mr Richardson, as agents of Liquidity, solicited prohibited clients in breach of undertakings, and the company is strictly liable for their acts. There was insufficient evidence that Mr Foulsham or Mr Tipper authorised or failed to prevent the breaches, so contempt was not established against them.

Court Disposition

Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited found in contempt of court; applications against Mr Foulsham and Mr Tipper dismissed.

Orders

  • Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited found guilty of contempt of court.
  • Applications against Mr Foulsham and Mr Tipper dismissed.