American venture capitalist and founder of Ariadne Capital, Julie Meyer has lost her appeal against a contempt finding and suspended prison sentence.

In January, Meyer (who has been involved in a dispute with Farrer & Co over unpaid fees) was given a suspended prison sentence over her failure to attend court for debtor questioning and provide documents. The judge stated that Meyer had shown herself to have been 'selfish and untrustworthy' and someone who's word counted for nothing. When she failed to attend a later hearing a warrant was issued for her arrest.

Meyer appealed the contempt finding arguing that the judge had no jurisdiction owing to Farrer & Co not complying with some procedural requirements, and that the sentence itself was excessive. That argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice Males stating that the complaints regarding the procedural requirements were entirely technical and that Meyer had not argued that she had relied on the procedural deficiencies, or that she had suffered any prejudice as a result.

Dismissing the appeal the court stated that the original judge rightly concluded that this was a 'deliberate and cynical breach of the order' which would remain in place until it was obeyed.

American venture capitalist and founder of Ariadne Capital, Julie Meyer has lost her appeal against a contempt finding and suspended prison sentence.

In January, Meyer (who has been involved in a dispute with Farrer & Co over unpaid fees) was given a suspended prison sentence over her failure to attend court for debtor questioning and provide documents. The judge stated that Meyer had shown herself to have been 'selfish and untrustworthy' and someone who's word counted for nothing. When she failed to attend a later hearing a warrant was issued for her arrest.

Meyer appealed the contempt finding arguing that the judge had no jurisdiction owing to Farrer & Co not complying with some procedural requirements, and that the sentence itself was excessive. That argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice Males stating that the complaints regarding the procedural requirements were entirely technical and that Meyer had not argued that she had relied on the procedural deficiencies, or that she had suffered any prejudice as a result.

Dismissing the appeal the court stated that the original judge rightly concluded that this was a 'deliberate and cynical breach of the order' which would remain in place until it was obeyed.