Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor

Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor

Permission to bring contempt proceedings was refused because the claimant failed to establish a strong prima facie case of contempt against either defendant. The alleged conduct did not amount to contempt of court, there was no evidence of intention to interfere with the administration of justice, and the proceedings were not in the public interest or proportionate. The applications were found to be totally without merit.

Parties
Claimant: Richard Achille; Defendant: Philip Calcutt; Defendant: Jane Carrington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (committal) Application / Ruling on Amendment, Permission to Proceed, and Strike Out/stay Applications
Outcome
Permission to amend the contempt claim granted; permission to bring contempt proceedings refused; proceedings dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Permission to Bring Contempt Proceedings, Interference With Administration of Justice, False Statements in Court Documents, Civil Procedure Rules R.81.3(5)
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal Proceedings Permission to Bring Contempt Proceedings Interference With Administration of Justice False Statements in Court Documents Civil Procedure Rules R.81.3(5)

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Achille

Claimant

Philip Calcutt

Defendant

Jane Carrington

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (committal) Application / Ruling on Amendment, Permission to Proceed, and Strike Out/stay Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission is required to bring contempt proceedings under CPR r.81.3(5)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be allowed to amend his contempt claim
  3. 3 Whether there is a strong prima facie case for contempt against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to bring contempt proceedings was refused because the claimant failed to establish a strong prima facie case of contempt against either defendant. The alleged conduct did not amount to contempt of court, there was no evidence of intention to interfere with the administration of justice, and the proceedings were not in the public interest or proportionate. The applications were found to be totally without merit.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend the contempt claim granted; permission to bring contempt proceedings refused; proceedings dismissed as totally without merit.

Orders

  • Permission to amend contempt claim granted
  • Permission to bring contempt proceedings refused