Inplayer Ltd & Anor v Thorogood
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
- LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
- LORD JUSTICE TREACY
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns an appeal by Jack Thorogood against a High Court judgment that found him guilty of contempt of court. The Court of Appeal quashed the contempt findings due to significant procedural errors, violations of Mr. Thorogood's rights under Article 6 of the ECHR, and the failure to inform him of his legal aid entitlement and right to remain silent.
Judgment
Lord Justice Jackson :
This judgment is in six parts:
Part 1. Introduction Paragraphs 1 to 7 Part 2. The facts Paragraphs 8 to 16 Part 3. The present proceedings Paragraphs 17 to 31 Part 4. The appeal to the Court of Appeal Paragraphs 32 to 51 Part 5. The appellant’s skeleton argument Paragraphs 52 to 57 Part 6. Executive summary Paragraphs 58 to 62
Part 1. Introduction
This is an appeal against a decision that the first defendant in a chancery action is guilty of two contempts of court by reason of untruthful statements in his affidavit. The main issue is whether the judge’s findings of contempt can stand despite a number of procedural irregularities which are now admitted.
The claimants in the action and the respondents to this appeal are (1) Invideous Ltd (“Invideous”), (2) Invideous Dooel-Skopje (“IDS”) and (3) Pierre Andurand (“Mr Andurand”). Invideous Ltd changed its name to Inplayer Ltd on 2 nd October 2014. I shall continue to refer to that company by its original name.
The defendants in the action are (1) Jack Thorogood (“Mr Thorogood”), (2) NOVP Dooel-Skopje (“NDS”), (3) Igor Micov (“Mr Micov”), (4) NOVP Ltd (“NOVP”) and (5) NOVP LLC (“NL”). Mr Thorogood is the only defendant alleged to have been in contempt. He alone is appellant in this court.
Other companies who will feature in the narrative are Dolphin Television Ltd (“Dolphin”) and Technicolor Media Services Limited (“Technicolor”).
I shall refer to the European Convention on Human Rights as “ECHR”. The ECHR article 6 provides:
“ Right to a fair trial
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
…
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;”
After these introductory remarks I must now turn to the facts.
Part 2. The facts
Invideous Ltd (“Invideous”) was incorporated on 1 st July 2010. The business of Invideous was concerned with monet