Ocado Group Plc & Anor v McKeeve [2020] EWHC 1463 (Ch) (11 June 2020)

Ocado Group Plc & Anor v McKeeve [2020] EWHC 1463 (Ch) (11 June 2020)

The application for permission to proceed with the committal application was refused because the grounds of contempt, as framed, were insufficiently particularised to give the respondent proper notice of the case against him. If ground 1 related to documents protected by the Search Order, it failed for the reasons set out in the draft judgment; if it bore the wider construction advanced by Ocado, it was too vague and lacked the necessary specificity. The application could not proceed unless and until the grounds were properly re-framed.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1463 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: OCADO GROUP plc; Applicant: OCADO CENTRAL SERVICES LIMITED; Respondent: MR RAYMOND McKEEVE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (criminal Contempt) Under CPR Part 81.14 / Supplemental Judgment Following Draft Judgment and Post Draft Submissions
Outcome
Application for permission to proceed with committal application refused.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Specificity of Pleadings, Search Orders, Due Administration of Justice, Amendment of Grounds, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Specificity of Pleadings Search Orders Due Administration of Justice Amendment of Grounds Disclosure Obligations

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OCADO GROUP plc

Applicant

OCADO CENTRAL SERVICES LIMITED

Applicant

MR RAYMOND McKEEVE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (criminal Contempt) Under CPR Part 81.14 / Supplemental Judgment Following Draft Judgment and Post Draft Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grounds of contempt were sufficiently particularised to permit the application to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of contempt could be amended post-hearing
  3. 3 Whether the respondent had adequate notice of the case against him

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to proceed with the committal application was refused because the grounds of contempt, as framed, were insufficiently particularised to give the respondent proper notice of the case against him. If ground 1 related to documents protected by the Search Order, it failed for the reasons set out in the draft judgment; if it bore the wider construction advanced by Ocado, it was too vague and lacked the necessary specificity. The application could not proceed unless and until the grounds were properly re-framed.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to proceed with committal application refused.

Orders

  • Permission to proceed with committal application refused.
  • No amendment to grounds of contempt permitted without proper re-framing and notice.