Mr Bryce had been found to be in contempt for three specific breaches:

• Failure to inform the applicant company's solicitors of his assets exceeding £10,000
• Failure to swear and serve an affidavit verifying the disclosed information
• Entering into a loan extension that diminished the equity of a relevant property

Mr Bryce’s mitigation defence was that he was at the time suffering from depressive disorder, suicidal, and self-medicating with alcohol and drugs; hence he “put his head in the sand.”

Mr Justice Bryan made a detailed review of the authorities regarding sanctions for contempt of court, committal and mitigating factors. He found whether the contempt is ongoing, capable of remedy and/or has been purged, to be strong factors. In this case, Mr Bryce had failed to purge his contempt even after instructing legal representation. Moreover, he could not be said to be unaware of his obligations because he had belatedly provided a list of assets by email which was found to be “so general as to be useless of the purpose of policing the Freezing Order.” The Judge was also unimpressed by Mr Bryce’s reported statement to his medical advisor that the retribution he was facing was draconian for “failing to file a piece of paper.”

The Judge found the respondent’s medical evidence and claim to dependence on substances to be possible but did not interfere with his finding that the respondent knew perfectly well what he had to do, but knowingly failed to do so. Mr Bryan’s depressive disorder did afford some mitigation when it came to the committal sentencing but only a small downwards adjustment from the top of the sentencing range. The respondent was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and to pay costs of the contempt applications on the indemnity basis.

This case demonstrates that courts will deem continuing breaches of freezing and related disclosure orders to be serious breaches which cause significant prejudice to applicants and are worthy of committal, even when there are personal mitigating factors at play. Prejudice, deliberateness and whether the contempt is remedied are all factors which the court will take into account when sentencing. Sticking one’s head in the sand is no defence.

Harneys does not advise on the law of England and Wales, but this judgment will be of interest to other common law jurisdictions in the context of enforcement of injunctive relief.