Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors

Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors

The court found to the criminal standard that the Third and Eighth Defendants were aware of and served with the WFO, failed to comply with disclosure obligations, and had assets exceeding the disclosure threshold. The court held that any alleged irregularity or illegality in service or the order is not a defence to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Mex Group Worldwide Limited; Defendant: Stewart Owen Ford; Defendant: Brian Robert Cormack; Defendant: Colm Denis Smith; Defendant: Michael Gollits; Defendant: Melville Consulting Partners Limited; Defendant: Melville Consultancy Limited; Defendant: Regal Consultancy International Limited; Defendant: CSM Securities SARL; Defendant: Von Der Heydt & Co AG; Defendant: Von Der Heydt Invest SA; Defendant: Mex Securities SARL; Defendant: Viacheslav Volotovskiy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (contempt of Court) Within Civil Freezing Order Proceedings / Liability Judgment on Contempt Application; Penalty and Consequential Matters Reserved
Outcome
Contempt of court proven against the Third and Eighth Defendants; penalty and consequential matters reserved for further hearing.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Worldwide Freezing Orders, Alternative Service, Hague Convention, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Injunctions International Law Contempt of Court Worldwide Freezing Orders Alternative Service Hague Convention Disclosure Obligations

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mex Group Worldwide Limited

Claimant

Stewart Owen Ford

Defendant

Brian Robert Cormack

Defendant

Colm Denis Smith

Defendant

Michael Gollits

Defendant

Melville Consulting Partners Limited

Defendant

Melville Consultancy Limited

Defendant

Regal Consultancy International Limited

Defendant

CSM Securities SARL

Defendant

Von Der Heydt & Co AG

Defendant

Von Der Heydt Invest SA

Defendant

Mex Securities SARL

Defendant

Viacheslav Volotovskiy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (contempt of Court) Within Civil Freezing Order Proceedings / Liability Judgment on Contempt Application; Penalty and Consequential Matters Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third and Eighth Defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with disclosure obligations under a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO)
  2. 2 Whether service of the WFO and committal application was valid under the Hague Convention and Luxembourg law
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant proved contempt to the criminal standard

Ratio Decidendi

The court found to the criminal standard that the Third and Eighth Defendants were aware of and served with the WFO, failed to comply with disclosure obligations, and had assets exceeding the disclosure threshold. The court held that any alleged irregularity or illegality in service or the order is not a defence to contempt; the obligation to comply is absolute until set aside. No evidence established that service was illegal under Luxembourg law. Acting on legal advice is not a defence to contempt. Accordingly, contempt was proven against the Third and Eighth Defendants.

Court Disposition

Contempt of court proven against the Third and Eighth Defendants; penalty and consequential matters reserved for further hearing.

Orders

  • Hearing to be fixed to consider penalty, relief from sanctions, and consequential issues no earlier than 7 days from formal hand-down of judgment.
  • Third and Eighth Defendants invited to consider late compliance with disclosure obligations before penalty hearing.