Case No. ZC19D00073

27.The principal criticism that I made of H related to his treatment of orders made for the production of documents and answers to questions. Those orders were made specifically in the context of H seeking to argue that loan notes to which he was entitled and which constituted the vast bulk of his wealth were not likely to be honoured, in full or in part, by reason of an alleged absence of liquidity in the underlying family businesses. Without that argument on his behalf, few if any of the orders would have been made. Likewise, it would have been unnecessary for the court to order the instruction of an SJE to advise on this issue. 28.H repeatedly ignored orders to produce documents or answer questions and failed to put the SJE in funds, despite my orders, so that they could carry out their work. These were serious acts of omission. They also led to the court timetable having to be put back by some 9 months. 29.Part of H’s available assets included a luxury yacht which was on the market for sale. I made orders intended to control the sale and the use of the proceeds. H completely ignored those orders, sold the yacht, and applied the equity for his own use. I regarded that behaviour as reprehensible. 30.Other criticisms are more minor and do not add to the argument. The issue is what impact these findings should have on publication. Discussion31.I have to conduct a balancing exercise between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, both rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. In normal circumstances, the right to privacy found in the FPR will prevail. 32.This is a finely balanced argument. H’s default does not get near to the level of misconduct in Lykiardopulo or that to be found in