Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 265 (14 March 2025)

Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 265 (14 March 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings of fact against Mr Mason were justified and supported by the evidence, including adverse credibility findings and circumstantial evidence. The judge's approach to circumstantial evidence and inferences was correct and in line with established legal principles. The procedural handling of the amendment to count 4 did not result in unfairness sufficient to vitiate the finding of contempt. The acts found—permitting and failing to correct Companies House filings indicating a purported transfer of shares—constituted a 'dealing' with assets in breach of the freezing order.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 265
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: Scott Dylan; Defendant: David Samuel Antrobus; Third Defendant / Appellant: Jack Mason
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Contempt of Court, Asset Transfers, Procedural Fairness, Findings of Fact, Appellate Review
Civil Contempt Banking Law Company Law Freezing Orders Contempt of Court Asset Transfers Procedural Fairness Findings of Fact +1 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant / Respondent

Scott Dylan

Defendant

David Samuel Antrobus

Defendant

Jack Mason

Third Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (business and Property Courts, Chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding Mr Mason in contempt of court for breaches of freezing orders.
  2. 2 Whether the findings of fact against Mr Mason were perverse or unsupported by the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in the amendment of the committal application regarding count 4.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings of fact against Mr Mason were justified and supported by the evidence, including adverse credibility findings and circumstantial evidence. The judge's approach to circumstantial evidence and inferences was correct and in line with established legal principles. The procedural handling of the amendment to count 4 did not result in unfairness sufficient to vitiate the finding of contempt. The acts found—permitting and failing to correct Companies House filings indicating a purported transfer of shares—constituted a 'dealing' with assets in breach of the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Findings of contempt against Mr Mason on all counts upheld.
  • Immediate custodial sentence of 22 months on counts 1-3 (concurrent) and 12 months on count 4 (concurrent) affirmed.