Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd

Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd

A strong prima facie case for contempt was not established; the evidence only showed possible carelessness or optimism, not actual knowledge or recklessness as to falsity. The application, though ultimately compliant with Practice Direction 81, would be wholly disproportionate given the sums involved and likely costs, and is not in the public interest.

Parties
Claimant: Berry Piling Systems Limited; Defendant: Sheer Projects Limited; Respondent: Christopher Berry; Respondent: Peter Death
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Permission to Bring Committal Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, False Statements, Statements of Truth, Adjudication Enforcement, Insolvency
Civil Procedure Company Law Contempt of Court False Statements Statements of Truth Adjudication Enforcement Insolvency

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berry Piling Systems Limited

Claimant

Sheer Projects Limited

Defendant

Christopher Berry

Respondent

Peter Death

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Permission to Bring Committal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a strong prima facie case for contempt of court under CPR 32.14 based on alleged false statements of solvency by directors in witness statements verified by statement of truth
  2. 2 Whether the application complies with Practice Direction 81 requirements
  3. 3 Whether proportionality and public interest justify permission for committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

A strong prima facie case for contempt was not established; the evidence only showed possible carelessness or optimism, not actual knowledge or recklessness as to falsity. The application, though ultimately compliant with Practice Direction 81, would be wholly disproportionate given the sums involved and likely costs, and is not in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed