or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
The High Court, in proceedings involved an alleged intent to defraud: (a) refuses to grant order for attachment and committal against either plaintiff or defendant, on grounds that the order they are alleged to have violated imposes no obligations on them; (b) refuses to grant order for preliminary hearing, on grounds that it would not save time; and (c) adjourns discovery motion in hope that the parties will resolve the matter between themselves.
Allegations of intent to defraud – interlocutory hearing – three motions – one seeking attachment and committal of first and second named defendants and of plaintiff for contempt for alleged failure to comply with previous court order – one seeking discovery of documents without redaction – one seeking trial of preliminary issue - with regard to attachment for contempt, alleged violation of third schedule of consent Order made 20th April 2018 – defendants failed to pay license fee - order makes no obligation upon defendants - contempt is not possible where there is no obligation to breach – order also places no obligation on plaintiff in facilitating licence fee – motions for attachment and committal rejected - motion for preliminary hearing actually requesting matter be heard on first day of the trial – could be dismissed on those grounds – sequencing of trial should be dealt with by trial judge – supposedly preliminary matter would not actually save time as issue of whether or not intent to defraud was present would still be between the parties – application for preliminary hearing rejected - discovery motion adjourned to allow parties to file more detailed affidavits and to hopefully resolve the matter between the parties.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.