Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors [2013] EWHC 3776 (QB) (03 December 2013)

Back Office Ltd v Percival & Ors [2013] EWHC 3776 (QB) (03 December 2013)

The breaches of undertakings by Mr Percival and Liquidity were deliberate and culpable, warranting fines. Liquidity's conduct in presenting misleading financial evidence justified indemnity costs from 30 May 2013. Genuine apology by Mr Percival mitigated penalty; apology by Liquidity was not accepted. Costs for successful defendants were awarded proportionally.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3776
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
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Penalty and Costs Determination
Outcome
Fines imposed for contempt; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
Breach of Undertaking, Contempt of Court, Costs, Fiduciary Duties, Post Termination Restrictions
Employment Law Civil Procedure Company Law Breach of Undertaking Contempt of Court Costs Fiduciary Duties Post Termination Restrictions

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 10
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 of Court Application / Penalty and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What penalty should be imposed for contempt of court by Mr Percival and Liquidity Group Solutions Limited?
  2. 2 Should costs be awarded and on what basis?
  3. 3 Were apologies and mitigation genuine and relevant to penalty?

Ratio Decidendi

The breaches of undertakings by Mr Percival and Liquidity were deliberate and culpable, warranting fines. Liquidity's conduct in presenting misleading financial evidence justified indemnity costs from 30 May 2013. Genuine apology by Mr Percival mitigated penalty; apology by Liquidity was not accepted. Costs for successful defendants were awarded proportionally.

Court Disposition

Fines imposed for contempt; costs orders made.

Orders

  • Mr Percival to pay a fine of £1,200.
  • Liquidity Group Solutions Limited to pay a fine of £5,000.