OCADO GROUP PLC & Anor v RAYMOND McKEEVE

OCADO GROUP PLC & Anor v RAYMOND McKEEVE

The defendant is liable for criminal contempt under Ground 5 for intentionally interfering with the due administration of justice by causing the destruction of documentary material (the 3CX App and its contents) stored on Electronic Data Storage Devices, thereby thwarting the purpose of the Search Order. The actus reus and mens rea are satisfied as the defendant knew the Search Order required a search of electronic data and acted to prevent the 3CX App from being searched. Grounds 1, 3, and 4 are not made out due to insufficient evidence of intention or destruction of confidential information.

Parties
Claimant: Ocado Group PLC; Claimant: Ocado Central Services Limited; Defendant: Raymond McKeeve
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings (criminal Contempt) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Defendant found liable for criminal contempt under Ground 5; not liable under Grounds 1, 3, and 4.
Legal Topics
Destruction of Evidence, Search Orders, Third Party Contempt, Disclosure Obligations, Employment Breach, Confidential Information Misuse
Civil Procedure Criminal Contempt Confidential Information Employment Law Destruction of Evidence Search Orders Third Party Contempt Disclosure Obligations +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ocado Group PLC

Claimant

Ocado Central Services Limited

Claimant

Raymond McKeeve

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings (criminal Contempt) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant intentionally interfere with the due administration of justice by causing destruction of documentary material relevant to the claim?
  2. 2 Did the defendant intentionally cause destruction of documents constituting 'Listed Items' under the Search Order?
  3. 3 Did the defendant intentionally cause destruction of confidential information within Schedule C of the Search Order?

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is liable for criminal contempt under Ground 5 for intentionally interfering with the due administration of justice by causing the destruction of documentary material (the 3CX App and its contents) stored on Electronic Data Storage Devices, thereby thwarting the purpose of the Search Order. The actus reus and mens rea are satisfied as the defendant knew the Search Order required a search of electronic data and acted to prevent the 3CX App from being searched. Grounds 1, 3, and 4 are not made out due to insufficient evidence of intention or destruction of confidential information.

Court Disposition

Defendant found liable for criminal contempt under Ground 5; not liable under Grounds 1, 3, and 4.

Orders

  • Further hearing required to determine consequences, costs, and sanction.