Brian Thomas Taylor v John Robinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Eyre |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch) |
| Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C30MA552 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2021] EWHC 664 (Ch)
HH JUDGE Eyre QC
Case No: C30MA552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS & PROPERTY COURTS IN MANCHESTER
BUSINESS LIST (ChD)
Manchester Civil Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West
Manchester M60 9DJ
Kristian Cavanagh (instructed by Stephen Lickrish & Associates) for the Claimant
The First Defendant appeared in person
Eddison Flint (instructed by Stephen Lickrish & Associates) for the Third Defendant
The Second and Fourth Defendants took no part in the hearing
Hearing date: 8 th January 2021
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
HH Judge Eyre QC:
Introduction .
On 7 th September 2020 the First Defendant (“Mr. Robinson”) issued an application for the committal of the Claimant and the Third Defendant for alleged non-compliance with four court orders made in 2019. On 8 th January 2021 the matter came before me on the hearing by MS Teams of the application by the Claimant and the Third Defendant for the striking out of that committal application. I reserved judgment at the conclusion of the hearing but in the course of my consideration of the arguments it became apparent that further submissions were appropriate as to the source of my powers in light of the issue identified at [38] below. I invited further submissions in that regard and received written submissions from Mr. Robinson and from the Third Defendant, the latter of whose submissions were adopted by the Claimant.
The Claimant and the Third Defendant are married to each other and although they are separately represented there is no material difference between their stance and interests for current purposes. I will refer to them as “the Taylors” save on the occasions when a distinction is to be drawn between them.
The committal application is the latest of a series of applications in an acrimonious dispute. The proceedings started with a claim being brought against Mr. Robinson by Mr. Taylor. At the hearing of a preliminary issue a finding on that issue was made in Mr. Robinson's favour. That resulted in a costs order against Mr. Taylor. The bulk of the amount later assessed as due in respect of that order is still outstanding and unpaid.
The Taylors contend that the committal application is to be struck out as being inadequately particularised; as failing to comply with the requirements of the CPR; and as being an abuse of process by reason of the principle enunciated in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100. Mr. Robinson does not concede that the committal application is deficient procedurally or in terms of particularisation and denies any abuse of process.
The Background to the Committal Applications
I have already noted that Mr. Robinson did not commence the proceedings which started this train of events but was instead the defendant to a claim which failed and that he has still not received the major part of the costs which the court ordered should be paid to him. The Taylors are now both bankrupt and Mr. Robinson believes that the Taylors have deliberately sought to conceal or secrete assets in order to avoid paying him. It is that belief which underlies the committal application. Mr. Robinson says that the breaches which he alleges and in respect of which he seeks the Taylors' committal are instances in the course of sustained attempts by the Taylors improperly (and Mr. Robinson says dishonestly) to hide assets so as to thwart the costs order in Mr. Robinson's favour. In his words he believes that he has been “led a merry dance”. In that regard Mr. Robinson points, amongst other matters, to the fact that the discharge of the Taylors' from their bankruptcies has been suspended contending that this shows that their obstructiveness has extended to their dealings with their trustee in bankruptcy. I make it clear that I am not determining the extent to which, if at all, Mr. Robinson's contentions are correct although it will be seen at [10] below that at least in relation to one transaction there has been a judicial finding that Mrs. Taylor was acting with the intention of putting property beyond Mr. Robinson's reach. In any event I have no doubt from considering the documents and from Mr. Robinson's oral submissions that he has a genuine sense of grievance. I am satisfied that the sundry applications he has made including the current committal application result from that sense of grievance and the belief that he has been wronged and not from any improper vindictiveness.
The Procedural History .
It is necessary to set out the procedural history in some detail.
The action was begun in 2013 and it resulted in the dismissal of the claim with a costs order against Mr. Taylor being made in Mr. Robinson's favour. There was a detailed assessment of the costs on 25 th October 2016 and Mr. Robinson's recoverable costs were assessed in the sum of £135,480.86. £40,000 had been paid on account and so by an order of 2 nd November 2016 Mr. Taylor was ordered to pay the balance of £95,480.86 by 15 th November 2016.
Mr. Robinson became concerned that the Taylors were disposing of their assets so as to avoid enforcement of that costs order. He applied for a freezing order and on 15 th January 2019 HH Judge Pearce made such an order against the Taylors on Mr. Robinson's without notice application. The matter came back before Judge Pearce on 8 th February 2019. The Taylors did not attend that hearing but Judge Pearce had before him a letter from their solicitors. By an order sealed on 14 th February 2019 Judge Pearce continued the freezing order. He also, at [16], ordered Mr. Taylor to provide by 22 nd February 2019 copies of his credit card statements for the period from January 2012 to December 2017 together with statements for a Santander bank account. Mrs. Taylor was ordered, at [17], to provide by the same date copies of her Santander bank statements. Judge Pearce also made an interim charging order in Mr. Robinson's favour charging Mrs. Taylor's interest in 67 Preston Road, Whittle-le-Woods (the Taylors' home) with the sums due under the order of Deputy District Judge Benson to which I will turn shortly.
On 12 th April 2019 Mr. Robinson applied for a variation of the existing order so as to require the Taylors to provide further information about their assets. He also sought their committal for alleged failures to make the disclosure required by order of 14 th February 2019. The matter came back before Judge Pearce on 2 nd May 2019 and he varied his earlier order by an order sealed on 11 th June 2019. At [16A] he ordered that Mr. Taylor was by 28 th June 2019 to swear and serve an affidavit setting out details of: all his assets exceeding £5,000 in value; any motor vehicles in his control giving details of their location; and all his bank accounts other than the Santander account already identified. At [16B] Mr. Taylor was ordered by 28 th June 2019 also to provide copies of bank statements in respect of any additional bank or building society accounts which were disclosed. At [17A] and [17B] Mrs. Taylor was ordered to swear an equivalent affidavit and to make equivalent disclosure also by 28 th June 2019. At the same time Judge Pearce gave directions in respect of the committal application. Those directions required service by Mr. Robinson of an amended committal application which was to be compliant with CPR Pt 81 and to identify separately the alleged acts of contempt. Judge Pearce directed that the committal application be heard on 24 th July 2019.
In the meantime Mr. Robinson had brought proceedings against Mrs. Taylor under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 alleging that a transfer from Mrs. Taylor to Diana Woods, her mother, had been entered into with the intention of putting property beyond Mr. Robinson's reach. That application was successful and by an order of 4 th February 2019 Deputy District Judge Benson recorded a finding that the transfer had been “a transaction that was entered into to defraud a creditor” and ordered Mrs. Taylor to pay Mr. Robinson £46,500 together with costs of £5,200 by 25 th February 2019.
In accordance with Judge Pearce's directions the committal application of 12 th April 2019 came before HH Judge Stephen Davies on 24 th July 2019. By an order sealed on 26 th July 2019 Judge Davies struck out the committal application because Mr. Robinson had produced no evidence that the earlier order had been personally served on the Taylors and because the application did not comply with CPR Pt 81 or contain the necessary information. Judge Davies then proceeded to order that Mr. and Mrs. Taylor post to the court by 16 th August 2019 witness statements fully and properly complying with [16], [16A], [16B] and [17], [17A], and [17B] respectively of the 11 th June 2019 order. It is the Taylors' alleged breach of this order which forms the core of the committal application with which I am concerned.
On 14 th August 2019 the Taylors provided statements but Mr. Robinson says that they were not complete and did not amount to proper compliance with the order of Judge Davies.
The sums due to Mr. Robinson were not paid and on 3 rd October 2019 and 16 th September 2019 respectively Mr. and Mrs. Taylor were made bankrupt on their own petitions. On 3 rd October 2020 orders were made in those bankruptcies suspending the Taylors' discharge until the fulfilment of conditions as set out in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verlox International Ltd v Igor Antoshin
...not necessary to obtain the court's permission to make, the court has such a power under its inherent jurisdiction: Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch), [37]–[46]. THE COMMITTAL APPLICATION AGAINST MR CROSSE The allegation that Mr Crosse made a dishonest statement in Crosse 2 when sayin......
-
Godstime Bassey Idnekpoma v Amazon UK Services Ltd
...Ord 52 and has not been expressly included within CPR Part 81, I accept, based on what was said by Judge Eyre QC in Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch) that the Court retains the power to do so as part of its inherent jurisdiction pursuant to which it has the power “to control its own p......
-
Jon Rivers v Chief Constable of Surrey Constabulary
...the Ouseley Order. That he is a litigant in person does not exempt him from complying with the rules or the order: Taylor v Robinson [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch), [51]. In light of the failure to observe the procedural requirements of CPR Part 81 and to comply with the Ouseley Order the applicatio......
-
2021 Year in Review - Civil Fraud
...the new rules. Law Society Seminar, ‘Civil Procedure Rules relating to Contempt of Court’ (8 October 2020) 2 [2021] EWHC 854 (Ch)3 [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch)4 White Book commentary on CPR 81 at paragraph 81.0.25 [2021] EWHC 1346 (Ch) © 2022 Akin Gum p Strauss Hauer & Feld 302021 Year in Review - ......