CHANCERY DIVISION
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
CRYSTALMEWS LIMITED | ||
(In liquidation) | Claimant | |
and | ||
LEE METTERICK | ||
ANDREW METTERICK | ||
RICKY METTERICK | ||
JULIET METTERICK | Defendants |
____________________
Mr Julian Gun Cuninghame (instructed by Dean Thomas & Co) for the First Defendant
Mr William Hibbert (instructed by Dean Thomas & Co) for the Fourth Defendant
Hearing: October 19, 2006
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins:
I Introduction
II The Freezing Orders
The First Freezing Order
"5 Until the return date or further order of the court, the Respondents must not:-
(i) remove from England and Wales any of their assets which are in England and Wales up to the value of £200,000,000.
(ii) in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of their assets whether they are in or outside England and Wales up to the same value.
6 Paragraph 5 applies to all of the Respondent's assets whether or not they are in his, her or its own name and whether they are solely or jointly owned. For the purpose of this order, the Respondent's assets include any asset which he has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it were his own. The Respondent is to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the asset in accordance with his direct or indirect instructions.
7 The prohibition includes in particular the following assets:-
(i) any monies in any bank accounts in the name of Respondents or in any bank account over which the Respondents are a signatory or have control…
...
16 Effect of this order
It is a contempt of court for any person notified of this order knowing[ly] to assist in or permit a breach of this order. Any person doing so may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.
…
20 Nothing in this Order shall, in respect of assets located outside England and Wales, prevent any third party from complying with:-
(1) What it reasonably believes to be its obligations, contractual or otherwise, under the laws and obligations of the country or state in which those assets are situated or under the proper law of any contract between itself and the Respondent ...
…."
The Second Freezing Order
"4 Until the return date or further order of the court, the Respondent must not:-
(i) remove from England and Wales any of her assets which are in England and Wales up to the value of £600,000.
(ii) in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of her assets whether they are in or outside England and Wales up to the same value.
5 Paragraph 4 applies to all of the Respondent's assets whether or not they are in her own name and whether they are solely or jointly owned. For the purpose of this order, the Respondent's assets include any asset which she has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it were her own. The Respondent is to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the asset in accordance with her direct or indirect instructions.
6 The prohibition includes in particular the following assets:-
(a) any monies in any bank accounts in the name of Respondent or in any bank account over which the Respondent is a signatory or have control in particular:
Juliet Metterick
National Westminster Bank plc
Market Place
Chesterfield
Sort Code: 60-40-09
A/C No.: 43476309
Caja Rural Intermediterranea
Sociedad Cooperativa De Credito
Mijas-La Cala
IBAN: ES51 3058 0834 3127 7001 2859
Swift Code CCRIES2A
A/c No 2770012859 ("the Spanish Account") …
…
13 Effect of this order
It is a contempt of court for any person notified of this order knowing to assist in or permit a breach of this order. Any person doing so may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized."
III The facts
"I have a joint bank account with my wife, Juliet Metterick, at CAJA Rural Intermediterranea, Sociedad Cooperativa De Credito, Mijas–La Cala, …with account number 2770012859, which had a balance of 263,542.23 euros as at 30th January 2006."
"I was made aware of the existence of the freezing order against my husband when my husband and I returned from Canada on 16th February 2006."
"My wife was made aware of the freezing order against me when my wife and I returned from Canada on 16th February 2006."
IV Alleged breaches of the Freezing Orders
V Conclusions
"…the following propositions may be stated as to the consequences which ensue when there are acts or omissions which are contrary to the terms of an injunction. (1) The person against whom the order is liable for contempt of court if he acts in breach of the order after having notice of it. (2) A third party will also be liable if he knowingly assists in the breach, that is to say if knowing the terms of the injunction he wilfully assists the person to whom it was directed to disobey it. This will be so whether or not the person enjoined has had notice of the injunction.
…
He is liable for contempt of court committed by himself. It is true that his conduct may very often be seen as possessing a dual character of contempt of court by himself and aiding and abetting the contempt by another, but the conduct will always amount to contempt of court by himself. It will be conduct which knowingly interferes with the administration of justice by causing the order of the court to be thwarted."
Knowledge of First Freezing Order
(1) Matters began while she and Mr Metterick were on holiday in Canada, staying with friends at their apartment. February 15, 2006 was her birthday, and Mr Metterick received a telephone call in the bedroom, and then made only a brief reference to the call, merely saying that the assets of the business were frozen.(2) They travelled back overnight on February 16, 2006 arriving back in the UK on February 17, 2006, again with their friends, and Mr Metterick did not say anything further at that stage.
(3) All she knew was that the business assets were frozen, and she did not know what those assets were, or the nature of the process by which they had been frozen.
(4) She had little understanding of what was involved in the concept of Mr Metterick's assets being frozen.
(5) Neither Mr Metterick nor anybody else explained to her what had happened nor what was involved. She was not shown or sent a copy of the Order nor given any summary of its substance or effect, even by the Company's solicitors.
(6) All she had was Mr Metterick's statement to the effect that his business's assets had been frozen, and she did not understand that his personal assets, or her personal assets, had been affected.
(7) No-one told her about the Order of March 6, 2006, extending the effect of the First Freezing Order.
(8) All she knew was that, in mid-February 2006, Mr Metterick's business had had its assets frozen and he was still involved with solicitors in relation to the affairs of his business.
Knowledge of Second Freezing Order
(1) The Company or its solicitors never contacted her, warned her or informed her of the true position regarding the Freezing Order, whether by a letter, sending her a copy of the Order or otherwise and she acted throughout in ignorance.(2) On March 22, 2006 she was unaware that the previous day an Order had been made in private freezing her assets.
(3) She had an appointment at the Meadowhall Centre with an audiologist that evening at about 6.30 p.m. (not a hair appointment). She went out at 6.00 p.m. or just after to go to the appointment. Mr Metterick's teenage daughter was in the house visiting him. The appointment lasted about half an hour, and then she went shopping in the Meadowhall Centre.
(4) She does not remember exactly when she got home, and Mr Metterick was not there and nor was his daughter.
(5) Her teenage niece Kayleigh, who lived with them at the time, was there.
(6) She therefore may have been at home at 10.00 p.m. when the process server says he came to the house and knocked on the door, but if she was there she certainly did not hear him and no-one told her that he had been there earlier or someone had been trying to serve her with papers. Because of her hearing problem, if there had been a knock on the door she might not have heard it.
(7) She was asleep by the time Mr Metterick came back, and he said nothing to her about any visit by a process server. She got up before Mr Metterick and set off early to catch her flight to Spain. Mr Metterick was still sleeping in bed and they had no conversation of substance. He said nothing to her about a process server wanting to serve her.
(8) In her telephone conversation with Mr Metterick on March 23, 2006 Mr Metterick did not warn her about the Freezing Order or mention anything about it at all. She says that she has no reason to claim privilege against self-incrimination about the conversation.
(9) After she had completed the sale, Mr Metterick came out to join her and told her when she saw him that an Order had been made to freeze her accounts, but not to worry. He told her that he had arranged for her to be served with the Order on March 28 at his solicitor's office.