HOWARD FIELD v GIOVANNI DEL VECCHIO

Personal service may be effected where the recipient refuses to accept documents but has been told their nature and the documents are left with or as near to the recipient as reasonably practicable. The focus is on the recipient’s knowledge and possession of the documents.

The court may order disclosure of the whereabouts of assets where there is a real prospect that the information will lead to their location or preservation. That jurisdiction may be exercised against the owner of the assets, as well as against a third party, and may support a final order.

The claimant, administrator of an artist’s estate, brought proceedings against the defendant for wrongful interference with goods and sought delivery-up of the deceased’s possessions. Earlier orders for delivery-up had not been complied with.

The defendant did not attend the contempt hearing. The court first considered whether to issue a bench warrant and adjourned the hearing briefly to secure his attendance. It then considered whether the contempt application and other proceedings had been properly served, whether judgment in default should be entered, whether information about the whereabouts of the goods could be ordered, and the appropriate costs order.

1. Bench warrant and absence. The defendant had been informed of the hearing but did not attend. Although the court had a strong case for proceeding in his absence, uncertainty as to his whereabouts justified issuing a bench warrant and adjourning briefly. If he was not found, the contempt application would proceed in his absence.
2. Personal service. The order had been served by email, but that did not satisfy the personal-service requirement for contempt proceedings. Personal service was nevertheless effected when the process server explained through the locked door that the documents concerned the proceedings and an injunction, then pushed the envelope through the letter box while the defendant was immediately on the other side. This was a “limb 2” case. The documents were left as close to him as reasonably practicable and could not have failed to come to his attention.
3. Information about assets. The court accepted the principle in Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No.5) that information may be ordered where there is a real prospect that it will lead to the location or preservation of assets subject to a proprietary claim. The principle was not confined to trust funds or interlocutory proceedings. It could support a final order against the defendant himself.
4. Inherent and statutory jurisdiction. Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 supplied an additional basis. An order requiring information about the goods was effectively a mandatory injunction and was just, convenient and necessary to protect the claimant’s established rights.
5. Judgment in default was entered in favour of the claimant, including delivery-up, information concerning the goods’ whereabouts and consequential damages. Costs were summarily assessed at £62,635.26 including VAT, on the indemnity basis.