OCS Group UK Ltd v Dadi & Ors

Sentencing for civil contempt must mark the seriousness of deliberate disobedience while remaining proportionate and directed, where relevant, towards securing future compliance. Imprisonment is a last resort, and the court must impose no more than the minimum term commensurate with the contempt. Relevant factors include prejudice and its remediability, pressure, deliberateness, culpability, responsibility for the breach, appreciation of seriousness, cooperation, early admission, apology, candour, character and antecedents. Multiple contempts may attract concurrent sentences. Immediate imprisonment was justified where the contemnor deliberately deleted potentially important evidence and disclosed the existence of an injunction, causing substantial prejudice, despite early admissions, remorse, cooperation and previous good character.

The claimant sought to commit the first defendant for contempt after he breached an interim injunction made in underlying proceedings concerning alleged misuse of confidential commercial information. The injunction prohibited disclosure of confidential information, required preservation of documents and prohibited disclosure of the injunction’s existence pending the return date.

The defendant admitted four breaches: deleting emails, including a mass deletion, and informing the fifth defendant and others about the order. He relied on panic, prompt admissions, cooperation, remorse, good character and the effect of imprisonment on his family. The central issue was the appropriate sanction for the admitted civil contempts.

1. Statutory framework. Under Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 14(1), the court could impose an immediate custodial sentence of up to two years. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 258, unconditional release followed after half the sentence. The available sanctions also included an unlimited fine and sequestration of assets.
2. Sentencing principles. The object of punishment for contempt is both to punish defiance of the court’s order and to deter future disobedience so as to protect the purpose of the injunction. The factors identified in Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and others [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch), and approved and supplemented in Aspect Capital Ltd v Hugh Christensen [2010] EWHC 744 (Ch), were relevant. They included prejudice and whether it could be remedied, pressure, deliberateness, culpability, responsibility for the breach, appreciation of seriousness, cooperation, early admission, sincere apology, candour, character and antecedents.
3. Application. The breaches were deliberate and contumacious. The defendant had deleted emails immediately and again on a much larger scale the following day, and had informed the person against whom the non-disclosure prohibition was particularly directed. The deletions were likely to prevent recovery of evidence, frustrate the claimant’s investigation and prejudice the underlying proceedings, while also causing forensic costs.
4. The court nevertheless gave substantial credit for the defendant’s early admissions, lack of false evidence, cooperation in attempting to recover the material, sincere remorse, previous good character and the personal and family consequences of imprisonment. The breaches occurred within 48 hours of service and before legal advice was obtained.
5. Imprisonment remained necessary to mark the court’s strong disapproval and to deter further disobedience and others who might flout court orders. Six weeks was the minimum appropriate term for each of the four contempts. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, producing a total sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment.