Allegation of seven breaches of freezing order by one defendant.
Held: Marcus Smith J summarised the law that applies to establish that there has been a contempt of court by virtue of the breach of such an order: ‘(1) Of critical importance is the order that is said to have been breached. As has been seen, the order generally must bear a penal notice,[23] must have been personally served on the defendant,[24] and must be capable of being complied with (in the sense that the time for compliance is in the future).[25] Additionally, the order must be clear and unambiguous.[26]
(2) The breach of the order must have been deliberate. This includes acting in a manner calculated to frustrate the purpose of the order.[27] A difficult question relates to what ‘deliberate’ means. It is not necessary that the defendant intended to breach the order, in the sense that he or she knew its terms and knew that his or her conduct was in breach of the order. It is sufficient that the defendant knew of the order and that his or her conduct in response was deliberate as opposed to inadvertent . .
(3) Deliberate breach of an order, in the sense described, is very significant. It is clearly in the public interest that court orders be obeyed.
(4) The standard of proof, in relation to the allegation, is to the criminal standard, that is beyond all reasonable doubt.’
Judges:
Marcus Smith J
Citations:
[2018] EWHC 1717 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Spectravest Inc v Aperknit ChD 1988
The parties had disputed the use of a Puss-n-Boots design motif used on garments. The defendant had undertaken to surrender goods using the motif, and not to further infringe the plaintiff’s copyright. Later the defendant had obtained legal advice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.618984
