WENDON & PADBURY

This matter concerned an application by Wendon and Padbury (the applicants) for an order that the respondent, Mr. Smith, be committed for contempt of court. The applicants alleged that Mr. Smith had breached an interlocutory injunction granted by the court on 15 March 2023, which restrained him from dealing with or diminishing the value of certain assets. The dispute arose from allegations that Mr. Smith had, in contravention of this order, transferred shares in a company to his wife and made significant cash withdrawals from bank accounts. The application was heard by Harman J.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Smith's actions constituted a wilful breach of the interlocutory injunction. This required the court to determine if Mr. Smith had knowledge of the injunction and, if so, whether his conduct in dealing with the specified assets was deliberate and in defiance of the court's order. The applicants bore the onus of proving contempt on the balance of probabilities.

Harman J found that the evidence established Mr. Smith's knowledge of the injunction. His Honour considered the transfer of shares and the cash withdrawals, concluding that these actions were undertaken with the intention of frustrating the purpose of the injunction, which was to preserve the assets pending further order. The court applied the principles of contempt of court, emphasising that wilful disobedience of a court order is a serious matter. The court noted that while Mr. Smith had offered explanations for his conduct, these were not sufficiently convincing to displace the inference of wilful breach.

Consequently, Harman J ordered that Mr. Smith be committed to prison for a period of three months, suspended on the condition that he take immediate steps to rectify the breaches of the injunction, including the re-transfer of the shares and the repayment of the withdrawn funds within 14 days.