Haederle (Thomas) v Thomas [2016] EWHC B36 (Ch) (02 November 2016)

Haederle (Thomas) v Thomas [2016] EWHC B36 (Ch) (02 November 2016)

A document that is sworn by the deponent, even if not signed by the deponent as required by the Practice Direction, may still constitute an affidavit for the purposes of committal for contempt if it can be established that the oath was administered. The committal application may proceed on this basis. In relation to the alleged breach of the freezing order, only the allegation concerning the €124,207.06 invoice for services rendered prior to the consultancy agreement raises an arguable case fit to go forward; other allegations regarding payments under the consultancy agreement do not.

Citation
[2016] EWHC B36 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Haederle; Respondent: Dierk Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Pre Trial Review (second Ptr)
Outcome
Partial success for both parties; committal application to proceed on limited grounds.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Affidavits, Committal for Contempt, Unfair Prejudice, Asset Disclosure
Civil Procedure Company Law Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Affidavits Committal for Contempt Unfair Prejudice Asset Disclosure

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Haederle

Applicant

Dierk Thomas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (contempt of Court) / Pre Trial Review (second Ptr)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unsigned but sworn affidavit can form the basis for committal for contempt for making a false affidavit
  2. 2 Whether arranging for payment for services rendered prior to a consultancy agreement to be made to a third-party company constitutes a breach of a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

A document that is sworn by the deponent, even if not signed by the deponent as required by the Practice Direction, may still constitute an affidavit for the purposes of committal for contempt if it can be established that the oath was administered. The committal application may proceed on this basis. In relation to the alleged breach of the freezing order, only the allegation concerning the €124,207.06 invoice for services rendered prior to the consultancy agreement raises an arguable case fit to go forward; other allegations regarding payments under the consultancy agreement do not.

Court Disposition

Partial success for both parties; committal application to proceed on limited grounds.

Orders

  • Ground 1 (false affidavit) allowed to proceed to hearing, subject to proof that the document was sworn by Mr Thomas.
  • Ground 2 (breach of freezing order) allowed to proceed only in relation to the €124,207.06 invoice for services rendered prior to the consultancy agreement; all other aspects of Ground 2 struck out.