Background
ADS Securities obtained a judgment against Tennor Holding BV for approximately €27.2 million, plus interest and costs, on 2 December 2022. To enforce the judgment, ADS sought to examine Tennor’s controlling shareholder and CEO, Mr Lars Windhorst, under Civil Procedure Rules Part 71 to determine the company’s means of payment. Beginning in December 2022, Master Cook ordered Windhorst to attend such an examination; however, over the following 3½ years, Windhorst repeatedly failed to comply despite multiple court orders, consent orders, and voluntary undertakings to attend.
In June 2025, an examination hearing was scheduled for 6 June 2025. Windhorst failed to attend without notice. Deputy Master Fine issued an Unless order on that date, requiring the judgment debt to be paid by 12 June 2025 or committal proceedings would commence. On 17 June 2025, Tennor was declared bankrupt in the Netherlands. Windhorst was subsequently brought before Dias J on a contempt application. On 30 March 2026, Dias J found him in contempt and imposed an 18-month suspended sentence with conditions, including a requirement to produce documents to ADS within 14 days of any rescheduled examination hearing.
Windhorst appealed on three grounds: that the sentence was excessive, that the document production requirement was unfair, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose a positive condition of suspension.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Fraser, with Lord Justice Newey) unanimously dismissed Windhorst’s appeal. The court found the 18-month suspended sentence entirely justified. Windhorst’s contempt was deliberate, cynical, and prolonged, marked by shifting explanations and an “utterly cavalier attitude” to court orders. Critically, his breach encompassed not only disobedience to court orders but also breach of his own voluntary undertakings given to the court—a factor the court found typically more serious than breach of orders alone. The court noted that breach of orders for provision of information ranks among the most serious types of civil contempt.
The court rejected the argument that the document production requirement was unfair. It observed that Windhorst had deliberately engineered delays to enable Tennor’s insolvency in the Netherlands before the Part 71 examination could take place, and there was nothing unfair in requiring him to comply with production obligations that should have been satisfied much earlier. The court further clarified that the requirement must be interpreted under CPR Part 31 (which defines when documents are within a party’s control), and was informed that Windhorst was in the process of categorising relevant documents.
On the jurisdictional question, the court held that the court’s inherent jurisdiction to impose “any terms which seem appropriate” when suspending a committal for contempt is not limited by specific procedural rules within CPR Part 71. While courts generally focus on negative conditions (abstaining from conduct), positive conditions requiring affirmative action—particularly where they reiterate obligations already imposed by earlier orders—are within the court’s powers. The 14-day advance production requirement was merely a timing adjustment to existing obligations and could not sensibly be characterised as unfair.