Ignite International Brands (UK) Limited & Anor v Inpero Limited & Anor

Sentencing for civil contempt must reflect the seriousness of the breach while imposing the shortest custodial term consistent with the circumstances. Relevant considerations include prejudice, deliberateness, culpability, pressure, responsibility for the breach, appreciation of its seriousness and co-operation.

Substantial non-compliance with a freezing order is ordinarily among the most serious forms of contempt and will usually justify immediate imprisonment. Mitigation, including mental ill-health, personal circumstances, lack of previous convictions and the impact on dependants, affects the length of sentence and may justify suspension, but does not necessarily avoid custody.

The judgment concerned sanctions following findings that Mark Cooper had committed two civil contempts. The first involved deliberate and evasive non-compliance with an order requiring delivery up of products and information about stock not delivered. The second involved failure to serve an affidavit disclosing assets as required by an order made in connection with a freezing order.

The court considered the extent of prejudice, the irreversibility of the loss, the defendant’s culpability, his partial and late compliance, mental health, alcohol dependency, status as a litigant in person and the effect of imprisonment on his family. The central issue was the appropriate sanction for the two contempts.

1. The court imposed nine months’ imprisonment for each contempt, to run concurrently, making a total sentence of nine months. Release would be available after half the term.

2. Under section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act, the court could impose immediate custody of up to two years, suspend imprisonment or impose an unlimited fine. Applying Aquilina v Aquilina [2004] EWCA Civ 504, any custodial term had to be as short as possible consistently with the circumstances.

3. The factors identified in Crystal Mews Limited v Metterick & Others [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch) were applied. The first contempt caused substantial and irreparable prejudice, involved deliberate non-compliance, high culpability and abuse of a position of trust. The defendant had shown little remorse and had not provided further information capable of assisting recovery.

4. The second contempt concerned a freezing order. Breaches of such orders engage a clear public interest and delayed compliance may be as harmful as non-compliance. The guidance in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2010] 1 WLR 350 and Templeton Insurance v Thomas [2013] EWCA Civ 35 supported immediate imprisonment for serious breaches, particularly where disclosure remained incomplete.

5. The approach in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392, reaffirmed in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, required assessment of culpability and harm, consideration of a fine first, imposition of the shortest sufficient custodial term, and proper weight to mitigation and the effect on dependants. The custodial threshold was passed, and the personal mitigation reduced the sentence but did not justify suspension.