Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd & Ors v UPL Europe Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 1893 (Ch) (26 July 2017)

Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd & Ors v UPL Europe Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 1893 (Ch) (26 July 2017)

Permission to bring committal proceedings is refused because, although there was a technical breach of CPR 31.22, it was not deliberate or reckless, was promptly acknowledged and purged, caused no prejudice, and the public interest does not require committal proceedings in these circumstances.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1893 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd; Claimant: Whyte Chemicals Ltd; Claimant: Melvyn Whyte; Defendant: UPL Europe Ltd; Defendant: UPL Deutschland GmbH; Defendant: Mishcon de Reya LLP; Defendant: Jeremy Milton Hertzog
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Bring Committal Proceedings (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission to bring committal proceedings refused
Legal Topics
Use of Disclosed Documents, CPR 31.22, Committal for Contempt, Interference With Administration of Justice
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Use of Disclosed Documents CPR 31.22 Committal for Contempt Interference With Administration of Justice

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd

Claimant

Whyte Chemicals Ltd

Claimant

Melvyn Whyte

Claimant

UPL Europe Ltd

Defendant

UPL Deutschland GmbH

Defendant

Mishcon de Reya LLP

Defendant

Jeremy Milton Hertzog

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Bring Committal Proceedings (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a deliberate or reckless breach of CPR 31.22 by using disclosed documents for a collateral purpose
  2. 2 Whether permission should be granted to bring committal proceedings for contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to bring committal proceedings is refused because, although there was a technical breach of CPR 31.22, it was not deliberate or reckless, was promptly acknowledged and purged, caused no prejudice, and the public interest does not require committal proceedings in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Permission to bring committal proceedings refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to bring committal proceedings dismissed