Bird v Hadkinson: ChD 4 Mar 1999

A party ordered to make disclosure in Mareva proceedings, could be found in contempt where the answers given were technically true, but misleading because of their incompleteness. The party has a clear duty to provide full and accurate disclosure. A deliberate intention to breach the order was not a necessary element for a finding of contempt of court.
Neuberger J
Times 07-Apr-1999, [1999] BPIR 653
England and Wales
CitedDirector General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) HL 25-Nov-1994
The actions of company employees, acting in the course of their employment and in contempt may put the company employer in contempt also, and even though the company may have given explicit instructions that no infringing agreement should be entered . .

Cited by:
CitedDaltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others ChD 3-May-2005
Application was made for leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court. David Richards J said that: ‘Allegations that statements of case and witness statements contain deliberately false statements are by no means uncommon and, in a fair number . .
CitedGulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd v Idisi ComC 22-Nov-2000
Application to commit defendant to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.78410