Lars Windhorst v ADS Securities LLC

The court’s inherent jurisdiction permits committal for contempt to be suspended on appropriate positive conditions. The procedural regime for judgment debtor examinations under the Civil Procedure Rules does not restrict that jurisdiction. A condition may require previously ordered documents to be produced before, rather than at, the examination. Conditions must clearly identify the conduct that will expose the contemnor to committal.

A contempt sanction requires assessment of culpability, harm and the circumstances of the particular breach. Breach of a voluntary undertaking typically increases seriousness, especially where the same conduct also breaches an order. Comparisons with other sanctions have limited value. An appellate court does not substitute its preferred term merely because another judge might have exercised the sentencing discretion differently.

ADS Securities LLC obtained a substantial commercial judgment against Tennor Holding BV. Lars Windhorst, Tennor’s beneficial owner, director and chief executive, was ordered to attend an examination under the Civil Procedure Rules to provide information about Tennor’s means. He was not a party to the underlying claim. Repeated orders, including consent orders and his voluntary undertaking to attend, failed to secure an effective examination.

Following his failure to attend the examination fixed for June 2025, Tennor entered Dutch insolvency proceedings. Dias J subsequently found him in contempt and imposed 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended on conditions: [2026] EWHC 787 (Comm). One condition required production of documents relating to Tennor’s means at least 14 days before the examination.

The appeal challenged the sanction alone. The issues were whether the term was excessive, whether the disclosure condition was unfair because of Tennor’s insolvency and the breadth of the documents required, and whether the court had jurisdiction to impose that positive condition under the examination procedure.

Appeal dismissed on all three grounds. Fraser LJ gave the reasons, with which Newey LJ agreed. The finding of contempt was unchallenged.

1. The 18-month term was within the range reasonably open to the judge. A sanction for contempt requires assessment of culpability, harm and all relevant circumstances. Custody requires the custody threshold to be crossed, and any term must be as short as possible while remaining commensurate with the contempt and the purposes of the jurisdiction. The principles stated in AG v Crossland, [2021] 4 WLR 103, and National Highways v Heyatawin, [2021] EWHC 3078 QB, supported that approach. Comparisons with other cases had limited value; seriousness had to be assessed in its particular context (paras 31–38).

2. The prolonged, deliberate non-compliance, shifting excuses and disrespect for court orders justified a term towards the statutory maximum of two years. Breach of a voluntary undertaking is typically more serious than breach of an order alone. Breaching both aggravated the contempt. The possibility that another judge might have selected a different term or refused suspension did not establish an appellate error (paras 36–38, 50–51).

3. The disclosure condition was fair. It had to be interpreted having regard to the rules governing control of documents. The documents had already been ordered to be produced at the examination; the operative change was their production 14 days earlier. Tennor’s later insolvency and the delay caused by the contemnor’s own conduct did not establish unfairness on these facts. The court also had general case management power to require production before a hearing (paras 39, 52–54).

4. The common law power to suspend committal survived independently of the statutory regime for criminal sentences, as explained in Morris v Crown Office, [1970] 2 KB 114. The examination procedure did not oust the inherent jurisdiction to impose appropriate positive conditions. The introductory provisions governing contempt procedure preserved that jurisdiction and applied to contempt proceedings arising under the examination rules. Requiring earlier production of documents already ordered was a permissible condition (paras 29–30, 43–47, 54–55).

5. Conditions must clearly explain what will cause the warrant of committal to be executed. The conditions here met that requirement. Positive conditions would ordinarily reinforce an existing order, but the court declined to hold that they must invariably concern earlier orders; their appropriateness depends on the circumstances (paras 42, 48, 55).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2026] EWCA Civ 905 . The appeal against the sanction was dismissed on all three grounds. The dismissal was announced on 2 June 2026, with reasons delivered on 17 July 2026.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: Dias J, [2026] EWHC 787 (Comm). On 30 March 2026, Mr Windhorst was found in contempt and committed for 18 months, suspended on conditions including advance production of documents. The contempt finding was not appealed.
• High Court, Commercial Court: Jacobs J made the underlying judgment order against Tennor on 2 December 2022. Subsequent examination orders and Mr Windhorst’s undertaking did not secure his attendance, leading to the contempt application.