Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza & Anor

Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza & Anor

The Defendants' breaches of the Disclosure Order were deliberate, contumacious, and caused ongoing serious prejudice to the Claimant. The Defendants had every opportunity to comply and to provide mitigation but failed to do so, instead engaging in tactical delays. The seriousness of the contempt is such that only immediate custodial sentences are appropriate, with both punitive and coercive elements. The application to adjourn is dismissed. Indemnity costs are awarded to the Claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Madison Pacific Trust Limited; Defendant: Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza; Defendant: Volodymyr Serhiyovch Naumenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Contempt Proceedings / Sanction Judgment After Finding of Contempt
Outcome
Application to adjourn dismissed; immediate custodial sentences imposed for contempt; indemnity costs awarded to Claimant.
Legal Topics
Breach of Disclosure Order, Sanctions for Contempt, Freezing Injunctions, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Commercial Law Breach of Disclosure Order Sanctions for Contempt Freezing Injunctions Costs 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madison Pacific Trust Limited

Claimant

Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza

Defendant

Volodymyr Serhiyovch Naumenko

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Contempt Proceedings / Sanction Judgment After Finding of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sanction for the Defendants' contempt of court by breaching a disclosure order?
  2. 2 Should the sanction hearing be adjourned to allow further time for compliance or mitigation?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants' breaches of the Disclosure Order were deliberate, contumacious, and caused ongoing serious prejudice to the Claimant. The Defendants had every opportunity to comply and to provide mitigation but failed to do so, instead engaging in tactical delays. The seriousness of the contempt is such that only immediate custodial sentences are appropriate, with both punitive and coercive elements. The application to adjourn is dismissed. Indemnity costs are awarded to the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Application to adjourn dismissed; immediate custodial sentences imposed for contempt; indemnity costs awarded to Claimant.

Orders

  • Each Defendant (Groza and Naumenko) committed to prison for 21 months, with a minimum of 9 months to be served as the punitive element; remainder may be remitted upon full compliance with the Disclosure Order.
  • Warrants of committal issued with power of arrest attached.