Refusal To Provide Data Tin Atomic Number 82 To Jail Sentence
In LTE Scientific Ltd v Thomas [2005] EWHC seven (QB), decided yesterday past times Mr Justice Richards in addition to already noted past times the All England Direct subscription-only service, Thomas sold his concern to LTE on price which included restrictive covenants. LTE afterward alleged that Thomas was working for its competitors inward breach of those restrictive covenants. LTE obtained disclosure orders against Thomas in addition to his married adult woman which required them to deliver upward computers in addition to electronic storage devices in addition to so that their contents could last inspected.
In these proceedings LTE alleged that, i time Thomas knew close the disclosure order, he (i) deliberately evaded service of the social club upon him in addition to (ii) installed a 'scratch' programme on his habitation estimator in addition to deleted diverse relevant files from the difficult disk. LTE besides complained that Mrs Thomas (i) failed to deliver the computers at i time to the supervising solicitor equally required to produce past times the orders in addition to (ii) failed to render her husband's mobile telephone number. LTE thus applied to commit the Thomases for contempt of court.
LTE: entitled to enforce the cooperation of alleged wrongdoers
The guess ruled that both Mr in addition to Mrs Thomas were inward contempt of court. Thomas' contempt was the to a greater extent than serious since he sought to evade service of the social club on him. Further, the loading of the scratch programme in addition to its purpose to delete the relevant files was a deliberate activeness which he clearly knew to last wrong. That contempt was in addition to so serious that committal to prison theatre was an appropriate remedy. As to Mrs Thomas, she was inward contempt inward failing to deliver upward the habitation estimator or to render her husband's mobile number. Indemnity costs would last awarded against her but she would non last sent to prison.
sees this equally a salutary reminder of the ability of contempt proceedings to concentrate the minds of fifty-fifty the most recalcitrant in addition to uncooperative of litigants.
More on enforcers here, here and here
Comments
Post a Comment