Ocado Group Plc & Anor v McKeeve

Ocado Group Plc & Anor v McKeeve

The application was dismissed because the grounds of contempt, as framed, were insufficiently particularised to give the respondent fair notice of the case against him. The judge found that if ground 1 was intended to refer to documents relevant to the claim (rather than those covered by the Search Order), it was too vague and lacked specificity. If it referred to documents covered by the Search Order, it failed for the reasons set out in the draft judgment. Amendments to clarify the grounds were not properly formulated or timely, and it would be unfair to allow the application to proceed or be amended at this late stage.

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) / Supplemental Judgment After Draft Judgment and Further Submissions
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Search Orders, Due Process, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Search Orders Due Process Amendment of Pleadings

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 10 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) / Supplemental Judgment After Draft Judgment and Further Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grounds of contempt were sufficiently particularised to allow 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 was dismissed because the grounds of contempt, as framed, were insufficiently particularised to give the respondent fair notice of the case against him. The judge found that if ground 1 was intended to refer to documents relevant to the claim (rather than those covered by the Search Order), it was too vague and lacked specificity. If it referred to documents covered by the Search Order, it failed for the reasons set out in the draft judgment. Amendments to clarify the grounds were not properly formulated or timely, and it would be unfair to allow the application to proceed or be amended at this late stage.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to proceed with committal dismissed
  • No adjournment granted