Jones & Anor v Argent

Contempt proceedings may proceed in the alleged contemnor’s absence where the court is satisfied that he was properly served, had sufficient notice, understood the consequences of non-attendance, deliberately chose not to attend, and would not be assisted by an adjournment. The court must also consider any disadvantage to the absent respondent, prejudice to the applicant, fairness to the forensic process and the overriding objective.

Contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Repeated, deliberate and contumacious breaches of court orders ordinarily justify significant punishment. A custodial sentence may be suspended briefly to provide a final opportunity for compliance.

The applicants sought the committal of the respondent for contempt arising from repeated alleged breaches of orders made in connection with the administration of a company. The respondent was absent and had not provided evidence in answer to the application. He had previously indicated that he did not recognise the authority or jurisdiction of the court.

The court therefore had to decide whether it was fair to proceed in his absence, whether the alleged breaches were proved to the criminal standard, and what sanction and costs order were appropriate.

1. Proceeding in absence. Applying the checklist discussed by Warren J in Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Limited & Ors [2016] EWCH 2201 (Ch), the court proceeded in the respondent’s absence. He had been served, had sufficient notice, understood that non-attendance could lead to arrest and committal, and had been informed of his entitlement to legal representation and legal aid. His non-attendance was inferred to result from his refusal to recognise the court’s authority. An adjournment was unlikely to secure voluntary attendance and would cause further costs, while no material forensic prejudice was identified.
2. Proof of contempt. The alleged breaches had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That standard was met in relation to attendance at the premises without consent, interference with staff and security, failures concerning UBS and GSFS Gold Globals, failure to return property or provide the required statement, and failure to provide information about other accounts. The court declined to find proved one alleged breach concerning attendance at an interview because the order did not clearly require the respondent to agree a time.
3. Sentence. The breaches were repeated, deliberate and contumacious. The respondent had steadfastly refused to accept that the orders required obedience. A custodial sentence was therefore the only sentence that adequately marked the court’s disapproval. The nine-month sentence was suspended for one month to give a final opportunity to comply and apply for remission.
4. Costs. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants’ costs on the indemnity basis, with £30,000 payable on account within 28 days.

Not stated in the judgment.