Ashley & Anr v Jimenez [2025] EWHC 557 (Ch)
In long-running Part 71 proceedings, the High Court has issued a bench warrant for the arrest of a judgment debtor who failed to comply with the terms of a suspended committal order. The Court also rejected the defendant’s suggestion that he was medically unable to attend Court for examination under Part 71 and found that he had deliberately refused to allow the claimants’ medical experts to carry out proper assessments of him.
Background
In 2019 the claimants, Michael Ashley and St James Holdings Ltd, obtained judgments against the defendant, Tony Jimenez. The judgment in favour of Mr Ashley was for over £4m for damages and interest for fraudulent misrepresentation. Despite attempts at enforcement, the sum currently owed exceeds £6m. In September 2021, a Part 71 Order was made requiring Mr Jimenez to attend a hearing for examination as to his assets, and to provide documents for that purpose. He failed to comply and in December 2021 a committal order was made against him, suspended on terms that required him to comply with the requirements of the Part 71 Order as may be directed, including any provision for Mr Jimenez to provide the relevant documents.
Shortly before the relisted Part 71 hearing in January 2022, an adjournment was sought on the basis that Mr Jimenez lacked litigation capacity. That assertion was challenged by the claimants, and a trial of that issue was listed for November 2022. Mr Jimenez did not submit to examination by the claimants’ medical experts despite being ordered to do so. Shortly before that trial took place, Mr Jimenez abandoned his claim that he lacked litigation capacity.
In November 2022, an order was made requiring Mr Jimenez to provide the documents under the Part 71 Order by mid-December 2022. Mr Jimenez purported to do so, but the claimants contended that he failed to provide various required documents. A week prior to the further re-listed Part 71 hearing in March 2023, Mr Jimenez sought a further adjournment, on the basis that he was suffering from a serious neurological condition. That contention led to further directions being given for his assessment by the claimants’ experts, with an order that unless he submitted to examination, he would be debarred from relying on medical evidence in relation to the determination of his ability to attend court.
Whilst Mr Jimenez attended assessments with the claimants’ experts, each of them considered him (in varying degrees) not to be complying with the tests or examinations they sought to conduct.
The Issues Trial
The claimants therefore sought final determinations of whether Mr Jimenez was medically unable to attend court for examination under Part 71, including a determination that he had failed to submit to assessments by the claimants’ experts and was accordingly debarred from relying on medical evidence in support of his position. At the same time, the claimants contended that Mr Jimenez had breached the suspended committal order by failing to provide documents as required by the Part 71 Order and that a warrant should be issued for his arrest.
Following a four-day trial, the Court found in the claimants’ favour on each of the issues, concluding not only that Mr Jimenez had failed to submit to examination by the claimants’ experts, but that in any event he was not medically unable to attend court by reason of a physical impairment due to a neurological examination. The Court was also not satisfied that Mr Jimenez was medically unable to attend court due to any mental impairment. The judgment contains a notable account of the medical evidence adduced by Mr Jimenez and explored in cross-examination, including a report which purportedly contained medical symptoms of the defendant, but which had been copied from the website of the Mayo Clinic.
As to the warrant of arrest, several issues arose as to the proper interpretation of the suspended committal order, and whether the Judge was power to make the order in the terms that he did. The Judge was also concerned as to whether it was appropriate to issue a bench warrant. Having heard detailed argument as to the construction of the suspended committal order and whether its terms had been breached, as well as on the court’s jurisdiction to make such orders, the Judge concluded that it was appropriate in all the circumstances to issue the bench warrant.
A copy of the judgment can be found here.
Hugh Miall acted for the successful claimants, instructed by Lawrence Stephens Ltd.
