Tower Bridge International Services LP v Michael Viney

Sentencing for civil contempt is fact-specific. Where deliberate breaches of freezing or disclosure orders are grave, immediate imprisonment may be required, even if the relevant assets have later been recovered. The court should assess each breach by culpability and harm, identify the lead breach, apply totality so that concurrent sentences remain just and proportionate, then allow for mitigation and any credit for admissions. The statutory maximum remains two years. Suspension is exceptional and requires a qualitative balancing exercise. Repeated, planned and dishonest breaches, together with poor compliance and a real risk of future dishonesty, may make immediate custody necessary despite personal mitigation and effects on others.

Tower Bridge International Services LP applied to commit Michael Viney to prison for contempt. Viney had been subject to freezing, proprietary and asset-disclosure injunctions obtained in support of a successful fraud claim exceeding £20 million.

He admitted three breaches: disposing of a Barcelona property and dissipating part of the proceeds; dealing with rental income from properties in the United Kingdom and Florida; and failing to disclose an investment worth approximately £1.26 million. The hearing therefore concerned sanction alone. The central issues were the appropriate sentences for the individual contempts, totality, mitigation, credit for the late admissions, and whether imprisonment should be suspended.

1. Individual contempts. The court assessed culpability and harm separately for each breach. The Barcelona disposal involved deliberate planning, concealment, misleading explanations and unrecovered loss. It warranted 18 months’ custody. The rental-income breach involved high culpability and medium harm towards the lower end of that category, warranting six months. The undisclosed investment involved a gross and deliberate breach of disclosure obligations. Although the asset was recovered, there had been a significant risk of loss exceeding £1 million. The appropriate sentence was 12 months.
2. Totality and reductions. The sentences were concurrent, with the Barcelona breach as the lead breach. An uplift to 22 months was necessary to reflect the distinct and cumulative seriousness of all three contempts, while avoiding double-counting. Personal mitigation reduced the term by three months. The late admissions attracted a further 15 per cent reduction, producing 16 months.
3. Suspension. The court applied a fact-sensitive balancing exercise. The defendant had some mitigation, including work undertaken after his fall from professional standing, but the prospects of rehabilitation were reduced by the deliberate and sustained nature of the contempts. His daughters did not live with him, and he was not their primary carer. Against suspension were the gravity and repetition of the breaches, poor compliance with court orders, and a real risk of future dishonest conduct.
4. The factors against suspension decisively outweighed those in favour. The sentence had to punish the contempt and protect the applicant. The shortest term properly reflecting the combined seriousness was an immediate committal to prison for 16 months.

First-instance contempt and sentencing decision. The judgment records that the defendant has an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal against sentence without permission.