Ocado Group Plc v Raymond McKeeve [2022] EWHC 2478 (Ch)
On 3 August 2022, Mr Justice Adam Johnson held that Raymond McKeeve – a leading private equity lawyer – was guilty of criminal contempt of court. By destroying documents in response to a Search Order and thwarting the purpose of that order, Mr McKeeve intentionally interfered with the administration of justice. A summary of the liability judgment can be found here.
On 5 October 2022, Adam Johnson J sentenced Mr McKeeve to a fine of £25,000, and he was ordered to pay Ocado’s costs of the committal proceedings, assessed on the indemnity basis. Ocado’s recovered costs came to over £750,000, and Mr McKeeve was ordered to make a payment on account corresponding to 80% of the recovered costs, in the sum of £610,353.
As to costs, Adam Johnson J held that Ocado had acted reasonably by bringing different formulations of the grounds of contempt against Mr McKeeve, as they “all arose out of the same factual story, and reflected different possible outcomes of essentially the same investigation which … was always going to have to be conducted however the case was reflected in precise pleading terms” (para 60). A discount was applied to Ocado’s costs in respect of those issues where it was not successful (para 64), but the case was “obviously one which is out of the norm” and so Ocado’s costs were awarded on the indemnity basis (para 68).
Adam Johnson J also considered the Supreme Court’s judgment in Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, and whether it required the court to take into account the defendant’s means in determining costs in contempt proceedings. He held that Crosland could be distinguished on the basis that it was concerned with Article 10 of the ECHR (the right to freedom of expression), whereas in the present case no such ECHR rights were relied upon. As such, it was not appropriate to take into account Mr McKeeve’s means (see paras 69-73).
As to sentence, Adam Johnson J held that:
- “…the deliberate destruction of documents falling with the scope of a search order is self-evidently a serious matter which should attract a high degree of culpability, and in particular in a case where the destruction is at the hands of a solicitor, an individual whose role as an officer of the court involves upholding the rule of law” (para 26);
- “The fact is that Mr McKeeve did exactly the opposite of what his role and his professional duties required. Indeed, he was contacted by the Supervising Solicitor precisely because he was a solicitor. The system of the Court making search orders is in large part dependent on the parties’ legal advisers acting responsibly in the course of their execution. Mr McKeeve intentionally failed to do so, and his actions in that sense are highly culpable and merit the sanction of the Court” (para 27);
- “[Mr McKeeve’s] previous position as a respected and successful practitioner has been severely compromised and his reputation is indelibly tarnished. He is now the subject of a Judgment making an express finding of contempt against him.” This combination of factors will “have a deterrent effect on other legal professionals“ (para 47); and
- Despite a “strong initial impulse towards the imposition of a custodial sentence”, it was not necessary to impose a prison sentence (para 44). A “substantial fine” of £25,000 was ordered, which took into account the substantial costs order made against Mr McKeeve (para 78).
David Cavender KC and Alexander Brown appeared for Ocado, instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP. You can view the full judgment here.