BL-2021-002235 - [2025] EWHC 2367 (Ch)

The starting point in a contempt sentencing case is usually that given in the Sentencing Council Guidelines, which were referred to by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103, [44]. The judge derives a starting point in the guidelines by looking at two things: the culpability involved in the breach; and the harm that has been caused by it.

In relation to culpability, the court generally looks in terms of A, B and C bands, A being the most serious and C being the least serious. The defendant’s actions in the present case were deliberate, and designed to be a nuisance at the least, perhaps with a view to achieving a financial settlement. This is not the most serious case that can be imagined, but neither is it the least serious. In terms of culpability, I am satisfied that this falls within band B.

In terms of the harm caused, the whole point of the order of 5 April 2022 was to remove the source of uncertainty in the marketplace about the ownership of the shares. But that process has been effectively stymied, because the respondent has made his various claims in relation to them. Therefore, he has frustrated the whole process, as well as adding further uncertainty to the market. In terms of the harm that has been caused, it is not the most serious harm that could be caused, but it is still serious. I evaluate that at Level 2, which is the middle level.