Leeds -v- Admatch [2013] JRC 134 (04 July 2013)

Leeds -v- Admatch [2013] JRC 134 (04 July 2013)

Mr and Mrs Weston were in contempt of court for redacting bank statements and failing to disclose related correspondence in breach of a post-judgment disclosure order, but purged their contempt by later compliance. Given the context and their conduct, a financial penalty and indemnity costs up to a certain date were justified.

Citation
[2013] JRC 134
Parties
Representor / Second Plaintiff: Leeds; First Plaintiff: Leeds United Association Football Club Limited; Defendant (now Dissolved): Admatch; Director of Admatch / Respondent: Mr Weston; Director of Admatch / Respondent: Mrs Weston
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceedings Supplemental Judgment / Post Judgment, Penalty and Costs Determination
Outcome
Mr Weston fined for contempt; costs apportioned between parties as specified.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Disclosure Orders, Costs (indemnity and Standard), Penalties for Contempt, Post Judgment Enforcement
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Company Law Contempt of Court Disclosure Orders Costs (indemnity and Standard) Penalties for Contempt Post Judgment Enforcement

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

Parties

Leeds

Representor / Second Plaintiff

Leeds United Association Football Club Limited

First Plaintiff

Admatch

Defendant (now Dissolved)

Mr Weston

Director of Admatch / Respondent

Mrs Weston

Director of Admatch / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceedings Supplemental Judgment / Post Judgment, Penalty and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr and Mrs Weston were in contempt of court for failing to comply with a disclosure order
  2. 2 Whether a penalty should be imposed for contempt
  3. 3 How costs should be apportioned between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

Mr and Mrs Weston were in contempt of court for redacting bank statements and failing to disclose related correspondence in breach of a post-judgment disclosure order, but purged their contempt by later compliance. Given the context and their conduct, a financial penalty and indemnity costs up to a certain date were justified.

Court Disposition

Mr Weston fined for contempt; costs apportioned between parties as specified.

Orders

  • Mr Weston to pay a fine of £5,000 within two months, with one month's imprisonment in default.
  • Mr and Mrs Weston jointly and severally to pay Leeds' costs up to 30th June 2012 on the indemnity basis.