Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV & Anor (Commital)

Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV & Anor (Commital)

The judge did not err in granting permission to apply for committal for contempt; there was a strong prima facie case that Mr Makdessi knowingly made a false statement of truth regarding his involvement with Carat, the statement was significant, persisted in until shortly before trial, and public interest justified the proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Talal El Makdessi; Respondent/1st Claimant: Cavendish Square Holdings BV; 2nd Claimant: Team Y&R Holdings Hong Kong Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Permission to Apply for Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, False Statement of Truth, Restrictive Covenants, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Public Interest in Committal Proceedings
Civil Procedure Contract Law Committal for Contempt False Statement of Truth Restrictive Covenants Sale and Purchase Agreement Public Interest in Committal Proceedings

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Talal El Makdessi

Appellant

Cavendish Square Holdings BV

Respondent/1st Claimant

Team Y&R Holdings Hong Kong Ltd

2nd Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Permission to Apply for Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in granting permission to apply for committal for contempt based on a false statement of truth in pleadings
  2. 2 Whether the public interest justified committal proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established a strong prima facie case of knowing falsity

Ratio Decidendi

The judge did not err in granting permission to apply for committal for contempt; there was a strong prima facie case that Mr Makdessi knowingly made a false statement of truth regarding his involvement with Carat, the statement was significant, persisted in until shortly before trial, and public interest justified the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to apply for committal for contempt affirmed
  • Costs and further proceedings to be determined at subsequent hearing