![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions >> Ignite International Brands (UK) Ltd & Anor v Inpero Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 220 (KB) (07 February 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/220.html Cite as: [2024] EWHC 220 (KB) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
(1) IGNITE INTERNATIONAL BRANDS (UK) LIMITED (2) IGNITE INTERNATIONAL BRANDS (LUXEMBOURG) S.A. |
Claimants |
|
- and - |
||
(1) INPERO LIMITED (2) MARK COOPER |
Defendants |
____________________
Michael Uberoi (instructed by Janes Solicitors) for the 2nd Defendant
Hearing dates: 17 July 2023 - 19 July 2023
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Introduction
Background
Court Proceedings
(a) Deliver-up to the Claimants the entirety of the Ignite product inventory that the Defendants then had on hand; and
(b) Provide the Claimants with information as to the dispositions and/or sales of any Ignite Product inventory (to the extent that the Ignite products delivered-up pursuant to the Order fell short of the closing inventory account provided to the Court by Ignite as part of the Application).
"2. Where any of the Claimant's Products are no longer within the Defendants' possession at the date of this Order, the Defendants shall, by no later than 4pm on Friday, 28 October 2022, provide in writing the following information: (a) if the product has been transferred to a third party, full details of the transfer, including the date, the recipient and the terms on which the transfer was made (including, if applicable, any price paid or due for the product); (b) if the product has been otherwise disposed of for any reason, full details of the disposal and the reasons for it; (c) the current location of the product, if known; (d) the Defendants' proposals (if any) for the return of the product. Such information shall be accompanied by such documentary records as are available (in original or true copy)."
i) Vape Product - V600 devices = 336,719 units with cost value of £651,813
ii) Vape Product – Other = 14,185 units with cost value of £132,210.
iii) CBD Products = 41,998 units with cost value of £229,374.
iv) Beverage Products = 34,290 units with cost value of £26,332.
v) Spirits Products - Vodka = 641 units with cost value of £12,309.
vi) Promotional Goods = 1,243 units with cost value of £53,114.
(a) The date on which the V600s were transferred to the purported purchaser, because, notwithstanding the date on the invoice, it remains unclear whether this was the date the V600s were physically transferred;
(b) Whether Mr Cooper was aware of the current location of the V600s and if so, what that location is;
(c) Proposals for the return of the V600s; or
(d) Details of the terms of sale of the V600s.
"Disposed
a. All ZRO – NFFC
i. This was discussed and agreed with the client.
b. Energy Shot – NFFC
i. This was discussed and agreed with the client
c. Gummies - All
i. Water damage to storage container"
i) Did Mr Cooper fail to deliver up the products listed in Schedule 3 to the Order of Mr Healy-Pratt KC made on 25 October 2022?
ii) If so, in respect of the products which were not delivered up, did Mr Cooper fail to furnish the Claimant with the information required by paragraph 2 of Mr Healy-Pratt KC's order?
"9.... the Respondent must by 4.30pm on 03 May 2023 and to the best of his ability inform the Applicant of all his assets within in the jurisdiction exceeding £1,000 in value whether in his own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets. (2) If the provision of any of this information is likely to incriminate the Respondent, he may be entitled to refuse to provide it, but is recommended to take legal advice before refusing to provide the information. Wrongful refusal to provide the information is contempt of court and may render the Respondent liable to be imprisoned, fined or have his assets seized.
10. By 16:30 on 05 May 2023, the Respondent must swear and serve on the Applicant an affidavit setting out the above information."
(3) By 16:30 on 19 May 2023, the second defendant is to file and serve a sworn affidavit setting out to the best of his ability:
(a) All of his assets within in the jurisdiction exceeding £1,000 in value whether in his own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets.
(b) All of Inpero Ltd's assets within in the jurisdiction exceeding £1,000 in value whether in his own name or not and whether solely or jointly owned, giving the value, location and details of all such assets.
Did the Defendant fail to file and serve a sworn affidavit setting out to the best of his ability the Defendants' assets within the jurisdiction worth over £1,000 and all of Inpero Ltd's assets in the jurisdiction exceeding £1,000 and the associated details including value and location required by the order?
Contempt 1 – Delivery Up/Provision of Information
"By contrast, I accept the thrust of Mr Grant's second submission that failure to perform an impossible undertaking is not a contempt. The mental element required of a contemnor is not that he either intends to breach or knows that he is breaching the court order or undertaking, but only that he intended the act or omission in question, and knew the facts which made it a breach of the order: see Adam Phones v. Goldschmidt [1999] 4 All ER 486 at 492j to 494j.
33. Nonetheless, even a mental element of that modest quality assumes that the alleged contemnor had some choice whether to commit the relevant act or omission. An omission to do that which is in truth impossible involves no choice at all. Failure to comply with an order to do something, where the doing of it is impossible, may therefore be a breach of the order, but not, in my judgment, a contempt of court."
"In any event, even when taken cumulatively, the Missing Product inventory purportedly explained in the notes of Mr. Cooper's email of 28 October 2022 only relate to a small minority of the Missing Products. In relation to the vast majority of the Missing Products (other than the Improperly Sold V600s), no accounting or information of any kind has been provided, and in respect of the Improperly Sold V600s, entirely insufficient information was provided."
Contempt 2
"The concept that the disproportionate pursuit of pointless litigation is an abuse takes on added force in connection with committal applications. Such proceedings are a typical form of satellite litigation, and not infrequently give rise to a risk of the application of the parties' and the court's time and resources otherwise than for the purpose of the fair, expeditious and economic determination of the underlying dispute, and therefore contrary to the overriding objective as set out in CPR 1.1...
It has long been recognised that the pursuit of committal proceedings which leads merely to the establishment of a purely technical contempt, rather than something of sufficient gravity to justify the imposition of a serious penalty, may lead to the applicant having to pay the respondent's costs:"
Conclusion