CC-2023-000006 - [2025] EWHC 1439 (Comm)

For the reasons explained in the Confidential Annex, the Defendants have fallen well short of demonstrating any unambiguous impropriety. Viewed in context, the negotiations between the parties were unremarkable and, indeed, fairly typical of hard-fought commercial litigation. Both sides, represented throughout by experienced legal advisors, clearly and candidly expressed their objectives during these discussions. Notably, there was no complaint at the time from the Defendants suggesting that the Claimant was using the pending Contempt Application to pressure them into an unfavourable settlement. In my view, this silence is telling. It indicates that the Defendants were fully prepared to negotiate, with the potential discontinuance of the Contempt Application being one of several bargaining chips on the table. At the time, neither the Defendants nor their legal representatives considered the Claimant’s position to be improper. The cry of “unambiguous impropriety” has only been raised – much later, and after negotiations failed to reach an agreement – in an effort to provide an evidential platform from which to argue that the Contempt Application should be struck out as an abuse of process.

Consequently, the without prejudice communications remain protected and are inadmissible as evidence in the Defendants’ application to strike out the Contempt Application as an abuse of process.

The Contempt Application has been outstanding for far too long. Proceedings for contempt of court must be dealt with as soon as fairly possible. Part of the delay in this case has been caused by the ill-health of the First Defendant, but it is not in his interests to have these proceedings hanging over him. As I indicated at the hearing, the Contempt Application will be fixed to be heard before the end of July.