Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza & Anor

Madison Pacific Trust Limited v Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza & Anor

The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Contempt Application against the Defendants, who are already subject to the Court's jurisdiction by virtue of the underlying proceedings and orders. No permission to serve out was required. The Defendants were fully aware of the Disclosure Order, deliberately failed to comply, and none of their asserted defences (including privilege, self-incrimination, ambiguity, or pending applications) provide any legal excuse or defence. The requirements for contempt are established beyond reasonable doubt. Personal service is dispensed with retrospectively as the Defendants had actual knowledge and suffered no injustice.

Parties
Claimant: Madison Pacific Trust Limited; Defendant: Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza; Defendant: Volodymyr Serhiyovch Naumenko
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Contempt Application / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Contempt Applications
Outcome
Jurisdiction Application dismissed; Contempt Application allowed; Defendants found in contempt of court.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Disclosure Orders, Worldwide Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Arbitration Commercial Law Contempt of Court Jurisdiction Service of Process Disclosure Orders Worldwide Freezing 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 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madison Pacific Trust Limited

Claimant

Sergiy Mykolayovch Groza

Defendant

Volodymyr Serhiyovch Naumenko

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Contempt Application / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Contempt Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Contempt Application against the Defendants who are outside the jurisdiction without permission to serve out
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are in contempt of court for non-compliance with the Disclosure Order
  3. 3 Whether personal service of the Disclosure Order and Contempt Application is required or can be dispensed with/retrospectively validated

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Contempt Application against the Defendants, who are already subject to the Court's jurisdiction by virtue of the underlying proceedings and orders. No permission to serve out was required. The Defendants were fully aware of the Disclosure Order, deliberately failed to comply, and none of their asserted defences (including privilege, self-incrimination, ambiguity, or pending applications) provide any legal excuse or defence. The requirements for contempt are established beyond reasonable doubt. Personal service is dispensed with retrospectively as the Defendants had actual knowledge and suffered no injustice.

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction Application dismissed; Contempt Application allowed; Defendants found in contempt of court.

Orders

  • Jurisdiction Application dismissed
  • Declaration that both Defendants are in contempt of court for breach of the Disclosure Order