SIA Investment Industry v Pardus Wealth Limited & Anor

A contempt application concerning breach of a freezing order requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent knew the order, acted or failed to act in breach of it, and knew the facts making the conduct a breach.

An intention to breach, knowledge that the conduct was unlawful, or a reasonable belief that there was no breach is unnecessary. The relevant conduct or omission must nevertheless be deliberate. Inadequate disclosure obligations are serious because they are required to police freezing orders. A court may draw appropriate inferences from the evidence, including silence, provided the criminal standard is met.

SIA Investment Industry sought the committal of Gregory Robert Bryce for alleged breaches of a freezing injunction and associated disclosure orders made on 17 November 2023. The application concerned failures to disclose assets fully and accurately, failure to swear and serve the required affidavit, and conduct diminishing equity in property subject to the injunction.

Mr Bryce did not provide timely responsive evidence and later accepted three breaches. The court therefore had to determine whether the elements of contempt were established beyond reasonable doubt, whether the application was proportionate, and whether the alleged breaches had been proved on the evidence.

1. Contempt established. The court was sure that Mr Bryce had knowledge of the freezing order and its terms. The order had been made in his presence, provided to him electronically, served at the relevant address and acknowledged by him.
2. The applicable test required proof that: (i) he knew the terms of the order; (ii) he acted or failed to act in a manner involving breach; and (iii) he knew the facts making his conduct a breach. The criminal standard applied. Not every evidential fact had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but each element did.
3. The disclosure breach was established because Mr Bryce failed to provide the required information by the deadline. His later email was incomplete and insufficiently particularised. It omitted, among other matters, a recently acquired Tenerife property and bank accounts, and did not give the required values, locations or encumbrances. The continuing inadequacy of the disclosure remained a breach.
4. Failure to swear and serve the affidavit required by paragraph 10 was a separate and serious breach. Being abroad did not make swearing an affidavit impossible. The later explanation of oversight did not provide a credible excuse.
5. Mr Bryce breached paragraph 4(1) by entering into a loan extension that added fees and diminished the available equity in Saffron House. It was irrelevant that discussions had begun before the freezing order or that the transaction was intended to avoid enforcement. He should have obtained SIA’s agreement or returned to court.
6. An intention to breach, knowledge that the conduct constituted a breach, or a reasonable belief that there was no breach was unnecessary. The relevant act or omission had to be deliberate, and the respondent had to know the facts constituting the breach.
7. The application was proper and proportionate. Breaches of court orders, particularly freezing and disclosure orders, undermine the administration of justice and are serious. The court declared that Mr Bryce had committed contempt in respect of paragraphs 8, 10 and 4(1) of the freezing order. Sentence was adjourned for mitigation.