Ocado Group Plc & Anor v Raymond McKeeve

Ocado Group Plc & Anor v Raymond McKeeve

A fine, not a custodial sentence, is the appropriate sanction for Mr McKeeve's contempt, given the impulsive nature of his conduct, lack of intent to affect the underlying action, his acceptance of responsibility, and the severe professional consequences already suffered. Ocado is the successful party and entitled to costs on the indemnity basis, but with a 40% reduction to reflect its failure on the more serious grounds of contempt.

Parties
Claimant: Ocado Group PLC; Claimant: Ocado Central Services Limited; Defendant: Raymond McKeeve
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings / Sanction and Costs Judgment Following Liability Judgment
Outcome
Contemnor fined; costs awarded to claimants with reduction
Legal Topics
Sanctions for Contempt, Costs Orders, Legal Professional Misconduct, Search Orders
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Sanctions for Contempt Costs Orders Legal Professional Misconduct Search Orders

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ocado Group PLC

Claimant

Ocado Central Services Limited

Claimant

Raymond McKeeve

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings / Sanction and Costs Judgment Following Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sanction for contempt of court by a solicitor interfering with a search order?
  2. 2 How should costs be apportioned where the claimant succeeds on only one of several grounds of contempt?

Ratio Decidendi

A fine, not a custodial sentence, is the appropriate sanction for Mr McKeeve's contempt, given the impulsive nature of his conduct, lack of intent to affect the underlying action, his acceptance of responsibility, and the severe professional consequences already suffered. Ocado is the successful party and entitled to costs on the indemnity basis, but with a 40% reduction to reflect its failure on the more serious grounds of contempt.

Court Disposition

Contemnor fined; costs awarded to claimants with reduction

Orders

  • Mr McKeeve to pay a fine of £25,000.
  • Mr McKeeve to pay 60% of Ocado's claimed costs prior to the consequentials hearing, assessed on the indemnity basis.