Especially given the new emphasis on proportionality, a party who brought contempt proceedings, in the case of an inadvertent breach of an injunction, with a view solely to creating costs for the other party, could expect to face those costs themselves. It was unwise to execute a complex search and seize order on a Saturday when the defendant would not have access to legal advice, and with no supervising solicitor. The mental element required of a contemnor is not that he either intends to breach or knows that he is breaching the court order or undertaking, but only that he intended the act or omission in question, and knew the facts which made it a breach of the order.
Jacob J, applying Bhimji, said: ‘Since that judgment the Civil Procedure Rules have come into force. Their emphasis on proportionality and on looking at the overall conduct of the parties emphasises the point that applications for committal should not be seen as a way of causing costs when the defendant has honestly tried to obey the court’s order.’
Judges:
Jacob J
Citations:
Times 17-Aug-1999, [1999] 4 All ER 486
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Bhimji v Chatwani 1991
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Sectorguard Plc v Dienne Plc ChD 3-Nov-2009
The claimant alleged misuse of confidential information in the form of its customer list, and its charges to them. The defendant company was run by former employees of the claimant. A later allegation was made of accessing the defendant’s private . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77636