Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford: High Court rules on contempt and cross-undertakings following collapsed freezing order

In a remarkable turn of events, Mr Justice Freedman has handed down a nuanced judgement in Mex Group Worldwide Limited v Stewart Owen Ford & Ors [2025] EWHC 2689 (KB), where defendants found guilty of contempt ultimately succeeded in obtaining an inquiry as to damages following the collapse of worldwide freezing order proceedings.

The case originated from allegations of an unlawful means conspiracy relating to a settlement agreement reached in Dubai in December 2020. Mex Group Worldwide Limited (MGWL), the parent company of the MultiBank Group, obtained a worldwide freezing order in England under section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982, supporting parallel proceedings in Scotland claiming £85 million in damages.

The freezing order's trajectory proved contentious from the outset. In December 2023, Deputy High Court Judge Mr Tinkler discharged the order against three respondents (Mr Gollits, VDH AG, and VDHI) for material non-disclosure and jurisdictional grounds. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in August 2024, with Coulson LJ noting particularly serious failures, including what appeared to be a "deliberate omission" to disclose relevant BVI appellate proceedings to the court.

Despite these setbacks, MGWL pursued contempt proceedings against the Third Defendant (Mr Colm Smith) and Eighth Defendant (CSM Securities Sarl), who had failed to provide required asset disclosure. Freedman J found the contempts proved in December 2024, noting that defendants cannot simply ignore court orders they believe were improperly obtained – the proper course being to apply for discharge whilst complying in the interim.

The landscape shifted dramatically in March 2025 when MGWL abruptly discontinued the Scottish proceedings. Lord Sandison, who had originally granted the Scottish orders, delivered a scathing costs judgement, suggesting the proceedings may have been brought solely to stay competing BVI litigation. He ordered costs on an agent and client paying basis with a 75% uplift – an exceptional sanction in Scottish practice.

In determining penalty for the proved contempts, Freedman J took the extraordinary step of imposing no custodial sentence or fine. The judge reasoned that since the freezing order should never have been granted due to material non-disclosure, and the underlying proceedings appeared to lack merit given their sudden abandonment, the circumstances warranted departure from usual sentencing practice.

The court ordered an inquiry as to damages on MGWL's cross-undertaking. Evidence suggested CSM's bond-issuing business was destroyed when MGWL's solicitors notified the Frankfurt Stock Exchange of the freezing order in August 2024, causing immediate delisting of CSM bonds. Mr Smith claimed losses exceeding €22 million, with the timing of notification – immediately before the Court of Appeal's adverse judgement – raising questions about MGWL's motivations.

The costs orders reflected the case's complexity. Whilst MGWL secured 50% of its contempt application costs up to December 2024, reflecting the defendants' breach, all subsequent costs were awarded against MGWL. The judge preserved earlier interim costs orders but rejected MGWL's attempt to parse costs issue-by-issue, holding that the overall reality was that MGWL had lost comprehensively.

This judgement illustrates the courts' willingness to look beyond technical breaches to examine the broader conduct of parties seeking equitable relief. The combination of material non-disclosure, questionable motivations for bringing proceedings, and abrupt discontinuance created exceptional circumstances justifying departure from conventional approaches to both contempt sentencing and costs allocation.

The case serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of pursuing freezing orders without proper disclosure and maintaining proceedings that may serve collateral purposes rather than genuine substantive claims.