Barclays Bank PLC v Scott Dylan & Ors

Contempt arising from a deliberate breach of a freezing order ordinarily warrants an immediate custodial sentence where the conduct seriously attacks the administration of justice. The court should assess seriousness by culpability and harm, apply the totality principle to multiple contempts, and impose the shortest custodial term that properly reflects the offending. A continuing breach may justify a sentence containing a coercive element, including an indication of potential remission for future compliance. Late admissions attract only limited credit where they do not reduce the trial burden or mitigate the effect on the claimant.

Barclays sought sentences against three respondents following findings that they had knowingly assisted breaches of freezing orders by transferring a substantial group of companies and related assets to offshore entities. The liability findings were given in Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan, Antrobus and Mason, [2024] EWHC 1994 (Ch).

The sentencing issues included the seriousness of the contempts, the respondents’ respective culpability, the harm to the administration of justice, credit for an admission, mitigation, suspension of imprisonment, remission for compliance, costs and a stay pending appeal.

1. The court sentenced all three respondents for deliberate breaches of freezing orders. The transfers were a planned joint enterprise designed to move assets beyond the court’s reach and frustrate investigation. The breaches were not technical: they undermined the purpose of the injunctions and attacked the administration of justice.
2. In assessing sentence, the court applied the approach in HM Attorney General v Crosland, treating culpability and harm as the principal measures of seriousness. A fine was insufficient. Counts 1 and 2, concerning the offshore transfer of the group’s assets, each required custody. Counts 3 and 4, concerning the release of security and the backdated share transfer, were also serious contempts, although culpability and harm differed between the respondents.
3. The court applied the totality principle. The appropriate aggregate starting point for each respondent was two years’ imprisonment. Mr Dylan received 22 months, with concurrent sentences on Counts 1 and 2 and only 5% credit for his admission on the fifth day of trial. Mr Antrobus received 22 months for Counts 1–3 and three months for Count 4, concurrent. Mr Mason received 22 months for Counts 1–3 and 12 months for Count 4, concurrent.
4. The sentences were not suspended. The seriousness of the breaches required immediate custody. Each respondent was entitled to unconditional release after serving half the aggregate sentence, namely 11 months.
5. Because the breaches were continuing, the court indicated that remission of up to 12 months might be appropriate if the full value of the assets transferred abroad were returned to the jurisdiction to the court’s satisfaction. The indication did not bind any future court considering remission.
6. Costs followed the event. The respondents were jointly and severally liable for Barclays’ costs on the indemnity basis, with payments on account calculated at 60%. The applications for a stay pending appeal and for delayed custody or suspension were refused.

The judgment records an earlier liability judgment in the same proceedings: Barclays Bank PLC v Dylan, Antrobus and Mason, [2024] EWHC 1994 (Ch). This judgment concerned sentencing and consequential applications.