Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd & Ors v UPL Europe Ltd & Ors

Permission to bring committal proceedings for breach of CPR r31.22 requires a strong prima facie case of deliberate or reckless breach. The applicant must also show that committal proceedings are in the public interest, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.

Use of disclosed documents to identify and raise related claims, seek amendment, or seek joinder in existing proceedings is ordinarily permitted. Threatening genuinely fresh and collateral proceedings using disclosed documents requires permission.

The claimants applied under CPR r81.14(1) for permission to bring committal proceedings against UPL Europe Ltd, UPL Deutschland GmbH, Mishcon de Reya LLP and Jeremy Hertzog.

The alleged contempt concerned letters sent after disclosure in related proceedings. The letters used disclosed emails to raise possible breach of confidence claims concerning the formulation of a plant protection product. One letter was sent to the solicitors representing existing parties. The other threatened Dr Affi, a potential new defendant, with fresh proceedings.

The issues were whether the application used the correct procedure, whether the letters breached CPR r31.22, and whether permission should be granted.

1. The application was procedurally correct. The allegation was breach of a CPR rule, rather than breach of an undertaking, so Section III of Part 81 and a Part 8 claim form were appropriate.

2. The consent order replacing the earlier Norwich Pharmacal order was to be treated as an order under CPR Part 31. The earlier undertaking governing use of documents could not be implied into it. The applicable restriction was therefore CPR r31.22.

3. The permission principles were adapted from Tinkler v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564. There must be a deliberate or reckless breach, a strong prima facie case, and a public-interest, proportionate and overriding-objective justification for committal proceedings.

4. The letter to the solicitors for existing defendants was not collateral use. The disclosed documents revealed a properly arguable related claim concerning the same products and factual issues. It was permissible to raise that claim, seek amendment and consider joinder.

5. The letter to Dr Affi was different. It clearly threatened fresh proceedings and therefore breached rule 31.22. A letter threatening joinder in the existing proceedings would not have breached the rule, provided the case was not truly collateral.

6. There was no strong prima facie case of deliberate or reckless breach. The solicitors had a genuine belief that their conduct was permissible. Subsequent assurances and an apology mitigated the breach. Committal proceedings would be disproportionate satellite litigation and were not in the public interest. The application was dismissed.