DBLP Sea Cow Limited v Lars Steffensen

In civil contempt, the claimant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the order, intentionally acted or failed to act in breach, and knew the facts making the conduct a breach. Actual knowledge can justify retrospective dispensation with personal service. It is unnecessary to prove knowledge that the conduct was legally a breach or an intention to breach. The court construes the order objectively.

A contempt hearing may proceed in the defendant’s absence only exceptionally, after considering fairness, notice, waiver, prejudice and the overriding objective. Deliberate, substantial and continuing breaches of injunction and disclosure obligations ordinarily warrant immediate custody. Sentencing must remain proportionate, but a fine or suspension may be inappropriate where contempt is unpurged and there is no mitigation.

DBLP applied to commit Mr Steffensen for contempt for failing to comply with four orders requiring information and documents about proceeds from shares previously transferred to him and sold. The underlying action had been resolved by judgment in the Chancery Division, reported at [2026] EWHC 281 (Ch), which found that the shares and proceeds were held on trust and that Mr Steffensen had breached his obligations.

He had been represented when the orders were made and was served through solicitors, but did not attend the contempt hearing or provide evidence. The issues were whether the court should proceed in his absence, whether personal service could be dispensed with retrospectively for three orders, whether the four contempts were proved, and what sentence should follow.

Mellor J proceeded with the contempt application in Mr Steffensen’s absence and found him in contempt of all four orders. He imposed two years’ imprisonment, commencing on arrest or surrender, without suspension, and issued a warrant for committal.

1. Proceeding in absence. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r 39.3, a contempt trial may be conducted in a defendant’s absence, but this is exceptional. Applying the checklist in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam), the court considered service, notice, the absence of any reason for non-attendance, waiver, likely disadvantage, prejudice caused by delay, the forensic process and the overriding objective. These factors justified proceeding with both liability and sentence.
2. Liability. The claimant had to prove contempt to the criminal standard. An essential fact could be inferred only where the inference was compelling. The required elements were knowledge of the order, conduct amounting to breach, and knowledge of the facts making the conduct a breach. Valid service ordinarily established knowledge. The court retrospectively dispensed with personal service of three orders because Mr Steffensen had actual knowledge of their terms, applying Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc v Hussain [2022] EWCA Civ 1264. The court construed the orders objectively under ADM International Sarl v Grain House International SA [2024] EWCA Civ 33. It was unnecessary to prove that Mr Steffensen knew his conduct was legally a breach or intended to breach the orders.
3. Findings. Mr Steffensen knowingly refused to provide information and documents identifying the sale proceeds and their recipients. He failed to file the affidavits required by the Debarring Order and Post-Judgment Injunction. The breaches were deliberate, continuing and designed to prevent tracing and recovery of the proceeds.
4. Sentence. Under Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, seriousness was assessed by culpability and harm, followed by consideration of a fine, custody, mitigation, impact on others, admission and suspension. The deliberate and continuing breaches of injunction and disclosure obligations were at the highest level of seriousness. A fine was inadequate, and there were no mitigating factors. The interlinked breaches were treated as one continuing course of conduct, attracting a single two-year term. The sentence was not suspended or divided between punishment and coercion. Mr Steffensen remained entitled to seek to purge the contempts on evidence, and DBLP received indemnity costs of £85,000.

First-instance contempt decision. No appellate history is stated in the judgment.