International Sports Tours Ltd (t/a Inspire Sports) v Shorey & Ors

Summary judgment may be given on admitted issues or issues for which there is no sensible defence. It should be refused where material factual disputes remain, including disputes about confidentiality, misuse, causation or loss.

A committal application need not await trial where the alleged contempt is admitted, the alleged contemnor need not give evidence, and proceeding immediately creates no unfairness. The court must assess the risk to future proceedings and the public interest in avoiding satellite litigation.

Knowingly swearing a false affidavit may constitute contempt without prior permission under the procedural rules governing false statements of truth. Sentencing should reflect culpability, harm, admissions, purging of contempt, personal circumstances and the need for future compliance. Custody may be unnecessary and disproportionate where the contempt has been substantially purged.

The claimant sought summary judgment against a former senior executive who had retained and disseminated confidential business information in breach of a settlement agreement and fiduciary duty. It also sought the defendant’s committal for contempt, based principally on a knowingly false affidavit served in response to an earlier court order.

The defendant admitted substantial breaches and the false evidence. The claimant abandoned or narrowed several claims, while factual disputes remained concerning contact data, alleged misuse of pricing information, confidentiality and loss. The court therefore had to determine which issues could be summarily decided, whether the committal application should proceed before trial, whether permission was required, and what sanction was appropriate.

1. Summary judgment. Under CPR PD 24.1 the court could give judgment on an issue on which the claim depended. Judgment was entered on the admitted breaches involving retention and some use or disclosure of confidential information, including information from the Salesforce database and Bookings List. The disputed allegations concerning contact data and the transmission of contract and pricing information to Vitesse Arnhem required factual findings and were left for trial.
2. Summary judgment was also refused on other unresolved matters. These included whether information was confidential despite being publicly available because of its aggregation or organisation, whether the information had been misused, and whether loss resulted. The possible effect of the claimant’s settlement with the second and third defendants on the remaining claim could not be determined without analysing that settlement.
3. Committal before trial. The court should be cautious where contempt proceedings might pressure a witness or prejudice a later trial. That was not an immutable rule. Here, the material facts were admitted, the defendant did not need to give evidence, and the application could be confined to the admitted false affidavit. Proceeding immediately avoided delay and served the public interest in determining serious alleged contempt.
4. Permission. CPR 32.24 and CPR 81.17–81.18 governed false statements of truth and disclosure statements. They did not require permission for an application founded exclusively on knowingly false affidavit evidence. The procedural distinction between affidavits and witness statements remained applicable, although the court regarded its rationale as difficult to sustain and potentially anachronistic.
5. Sanction. Knowingly giving false evidence deliberately to undermine court proceedings was serious and approached or marginally exceeded the custody threshold. However, the defendant’s early and comprehensive admissions, apology, efforts to purge the contempt, good character, limited continuing prejudice and the absence of a continuing coercive need made custody unnecessary and disproportionate. A fine of £1,000 was imposed, payable within 28 days.
6. The claimant received judgment on the admitted issues. Costs of the interim applications were reserved to trial. The claimant received its committal costs on the standard basis, reduced by 25%, with an interim payment of £2,500. It received 30% of its summary judgment costs.