Category: Contempt of Court

Aitken v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 23 Apr 2015

The newspaper was accused of publishing an article in breach of reporting restrictions imposed under section 33. The court now asked whether the appellant, the newspaper editor, was for these purposes, the publisher and at risk of criminal responsibility.
Held: He did not fall outside the class covered by the phrase ‘any person who publishes’ for the offence of publishing information likely to lead to the identification of a child witness or victim in criminal proceedings, under section 39(2).

Bean LJ, William Davis, Warby JJ
[2015] EWHC 1079 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 184
Bailii, WLRD
Children & Young Persons Act 1933 39
Citing:
Cited – Dickenson v Fletcher 1873
A penal statute should receive a strict or restrictive interpretation. Brett J said: ‘Those who contend that a penalty may be inflicted must show that the words of the Act distinctly enact that it shall be incurred under the present circumstances. . .
Cited – JC and Another v The Central Criminal Court QBD 8-Apr-2014
The court was asked whether an order made under s. 39 of the 1933 Act, prohibiting the identification of (among others) a defendant under the age of 18 years, can last indefinitely or whether it automatically expires when that person attains the age . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Contempt of Court

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545928

Lakatamia v Su: CA 24 Sep 2019

Application for an extension of time for appeal against a committal order. The grounds for the committal were multiple breaches of freezing orders, orders requiring disclosure of assets and orders requiring the defendant not to leave the jurisdiction.

[2019] EWCA Civ 1626
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 13-Feb-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others CA 14-May-2014
The claimant had obtained a freezing order in standard form against the defendant company. The Director of the company had similar sole positions in three other companies. The claimant obtained a similar order against the assets of the other . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su CA 16-Sep-2019
Application for bail after committal for contempt on finding of guilt of numerous breaches of court orders relating to the case. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 30-Jan-2020
Application for committal for contempt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Moritomo) and Others ComC 3-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 8-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 9-Nov-2020
Application by Lakatamia pursuant to CPR Part 31.22 to use documents obtained from the Respondent, Mr Su, in these proceedings pursuant to a search order made in related proceedings bearing the claim . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 11-Dec-2020
Application by the claimant, Lakatamia, to re-amend its committal application notice to incorporate 11 additional alleged contempts on the part of the first defendant, . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 25-Jan-2021
Application to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim and the second is an application for specific disclosure also made by the claimant, Lakatamia. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 15-Apr-2021
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others ChD 1-Jul-2021
Interpretation of the phrase ‘has had a place of residence’ in section 263I(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and Others ComC 8-Jul-2021
Alleged cause of action in unlawful means conspiracy as to whether the Defendants including the Second Defendant Toshiko Morimoto (‘Madam Su’) conspired together to injure Lakatamia by unlawful means, namely by the dissipation of two assets of Madam . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others CA 30-Jul-2021
Use of passport orders in enforcement of collection of judgment debt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su ComC 15-Sep-2021
Reasons for dismissal of appeal from maximum sentence of two years imprisonment for contempt. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.642655

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su: CA 16 Sep 2019

Application for bail after committal for contempt on finding of guilt of numerous breaches of court orders relating to the case.

Green LJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 1574
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 13-Feb-2014
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others CA 14-May-2014
The claimant had obtained a freezing order in standard form against the defendant company. The Director of the company had similar sole positions in three other companies. The claimant obtained a similar order against the assets of the other . .

Cited by:
See Also – Lakatamia v Su CA 24-Sep-2019
Application for an extension of time for appeal against a committal order. The grounds for the committal were multiple breaches of freezing orders, orders requiring disclosure of assets and orders requiring the defendant not to leave the . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 30-Jan-2020
Application for committal for contempt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Moritomo) and Others ComC 3-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 8-Apr-2020
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 9-Nov-2020
Application by Lakatamia pursuant to CPR Part 31.22 to use documents obtained from the Respondent, Mr Su, in these proceedings pursuant to a search order made in related proceedings bearing the claim . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 11-Dec-2020
Application by the claimant, Lakatamia, to re-amend its committal application notice to incorporate 11 additional alleged contempts on the part of the first defendant, . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu Su and Others ComC 25-Jan-2021
Application to re-re-amend the Particulars of Claim and the second is an application for specific disclosure also made by the claimant, Lakatamia. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others ComC 15-Apr-2021
. .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and Others ChD 1-Jul-2021
Interpretation of the phrase ‘has had a place of residence’ in section 263I(2)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su and Others ComC 8-Jul-2021
Alleged cause of action in unlawful means conspiracy as to whether the Defendants including the Second Defendant Toshiko Morimoto (‘Madam Su’) conspired together to injure Lakatamia by unlawful means, namely by the dissipation of two assets of Madam . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd and Others v Su and Others CA 30-Jul-2021
Use of passport orders in enforcement of collection of judgment debt. . .
See Also – Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su ComC 15-Sep-2021
Reasons for dismissal of appeal from maximum sentence of two years imprisonment for contempt. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.644117

Saleem, Regina (on The Application of) v Serwan and Another: CA 14 Jan 2015

Appeal, brought as of right, against an order committing her to prison for a period of eight months for contempt of court. The contempt alleged was the making of false statements, verified by statements of truth in an action brought by her against Mr Sherzad Serwan and Liverpool Victoria Insurance Services, it being said that she had no honest belief in the truth of such statements.

Lewison, McCombe LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 123
Bailii
England and Wales

Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543775

Re M (A Minor) Contempt of Court: Committal of Court’s Own Motion): 1999

The court emphasised the need for time for reflection before making an order for committal for contempt.

[1999] Fam 263
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hammerton v Hammerton CA 23-Mar-2007
The husband appealed against his committal for contempt of a court order in family proceedings. The court had heard the wife’s application for his committal at the same time as his application for contact with the children.
Held: The appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.250484

Re K (Contact: Committal Order): 2003

Proceedings for committal are a criminal charge for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention.

[2003] 1 FLR 277
European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hammerton v Hammerton CA 23-Mar-2007
The husband appealed against his committal for contempt of a court order in family proceedings. The court had heard the wife’s application for his committal at the same time as his application for contact with the children.
Held: The appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.250482

Regina v Moran: 1985

The court noted the need for a court to ‘take stock’ before sentencing for contempt of court.

[1985] 81 Cr App R 51
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hammerton v Hammerton CA 23-Mar-2007
The husband appealed against his committal for contempt of a court order in family proceedings. The court had heard the wife’s application for his committal at the same time as his application for contact with the children.
Held: The appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.250485

James, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Prison Birmingham and Others: CA 9 Feb 2015

The court considered the treatment of time on remand by those who have been arrested under section 43 of the 2009 Act for breach of a final gang injunction order under sections 34 to 36 of the 2009 Act, and subsequently imprisoned for contempt of court pursuant to section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and section 120 of the County Courts Act 1984.

Arden, Beatson, Gloster LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 58
Bailii
Policing and Crime Act 2009 43, Contempt of Court Act 1981 14, County Courts Act 1984 120
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Contempt of Court

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542435

Regina v Griffin: 1989

The court considered the extent of the jurisdiction to commit for contempt. Mustill LJ said: ‘We should add that certain dicta (for example, in Balogh) may be read as suggesting that the court has no jurisdiction to adopt the summary process unless the matter is urgent. We doubt whether this is strictly accurate. In our view the question of urgency or no is material, not to the existence of the jurisdiction but as to whether the jurisdiction should be exercised in preference to some more measured form of process.’

Mustill LJ
(1989) 88 Cr App R 63
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Balogh v St Albans Crown Court CA 1975
The defendant, a solicitors’ clerk attending a trial, grew bored, and set out to release laughing gas into the court through a vent. He had been seen earlier and was caught before he achieved his end. He appealed his committal; for contempt, saying . .

Cited by:
Cited – Santiago v Regina CACD 8-Mar-2005
The defendant had been convicted but refused to leave his cell to attend court to be sentenced. The judge had adjourned a hearing on contempt for seven days.
Held: The judge was under no duty to hear any allegation of contempt on the day. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.224059

Newman (Number 2): FD 17 Oct 2014

Further application by Council in proceedings for committal of defendant for alleged contempt of court. The defendant having not committed any further breaches, the Council withdrew the second application with the consent of the court.
Held: Given the improvement it was right to take the unusual course of deferring sentence to see whether the defendant continued with his compliance in which case a committal may not be required.

Sir James Munby P FD
[2014] EWHC 3399 (Fam)
Bailii

Family, Contempt of Court

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537740

Re M (A Child) (Contempt Procedure): CA 3 Sep 2019

Failures in Applying Contempt Procedures

The appellant challenged the finding that he had been in contempt of court. Working as a paralegal in the case he was said to have disclosed to the Immigration Tribunal, documents from family proceedings without the Family Court’s required consent.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Court pointed to several errors in the decision: (1) The failure to give the appellant proper notice of the contempt allegation and the fact that he was facing an application to commit him to prison, the recorder’s direction having been simply an order for the filing of an explanatory statement and no other notice having been issued or served on the appellant.
(2) The failure to particularise the alleged contempt, no attempt having been made to identify precisely the documents which had allegedly been unlawfully disclosed.
(3) The failure to give the appellant a fair opportunity to consider whether he wished to be legally represented. It is said that the judge ought to have appreciated that he did not understand what was going on and, in those circumstances, should have adjourned the hearing.
(4) The failure to ensure the allegations were put expressly to the appellant and to establish whether it was he who was responsible for any unauthorised disclosure rather than Mr Gull.
(5) By requiring the appellant to go into the witness box, thereby compelling him to give evidence.
(6) Further complaint is made as to the sentence imposed. It is submitted that the judge failed to give the appellant a proper opportunity to put forward any matters in mitigation and then passed a sentence which was unduly harsh.
In effect the judge had acted as a prosecutor.

[2019] EWCA Civ 1559
Bailii
Family Procedure Rules 37.27
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re L (A Child) CA 22-Mar-2016
U appealed from conviction and sentence of six months for contempt of court. The court used its inherent jurisdiction
Vos LJ said: ‘The process of committal for contempt is a highly technical one as this case shows. But it is highly technical . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Legal Professions

Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.641794

Enfield London Borough Council v Mahoney: CA 1983

The contemnor had refused to comply with a court order requiring him to return an ancient cross, the Glastonbury Cross. He now sought his release from prison saying his contempt was purged, the Cross having been returned.
Held: The reasons for a committal to custody for a civil contempt were twofold, first to punish the contemnor for disobedience of an order of the court and second to attempt to coerce him to comply with the order. On application for early discharge, the first question for the court should be whether the contemnor has been punished enough for the contempt. If not, then he would probably fail to secure discharge. But if so, the only remaining justification for continuing to keep him in custody was the possibly coercive effect of continuing to do so.

May LJ
[1983] 1 WLR 749, [1983] 2 All ER 901
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Symes v Phillips and others CA 19-May-2005
The applicant was in contempt of court. He successfully appealed a sentence of two years imprisonment, with the sentence being reduced to one year. Legally aided, he sought his costs from the claimant. The claimant replied that their part was only . .
Cited – CJ v Flintshire Borough Council CA 15-Apr-2010
The applicant appealed against a refusal to allow his early release from prison having been sentenced to 21 months for contempts of court.
Held: The appeal failed. The court set out eight questions which might be asked before allowing such a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.226062

Spurrier, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 5 Feb 2019

Live streaming of video and audio from a court room is prohibited.

Lord Justice Hickinbottom, and
Mr Justice Holgate
[2019] EWHC 528 (Admin), [2019] EMLR 2016, [2021] 4 WLR 33
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Spurrier, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport Admn 1-May-2019
Challenge to policy supporting establishment of third runway at Heathrow Airport . .
Cited – Gubarev and Another v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd and Another QBD 6-Aug-2020
Wrongful Transmission of Distanced Hearing
In a defamation case, the solicitors representing one party had live streamed a video of a defamation trial to several individuals outside the jurisdiction without the Court’s permission. The trial took place during the Coronavirus pandemic, and . .
Cited – Good Law Project Ltd and Others, Regina (on Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 18-Feb-2021
Failure to Publish Contracts awards details
Challenge to alleged failures by the Secretary of State to comply with procurement law and policy in relation to contracts for goods and services awarded following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Held: The contracts had been awarded under . .
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court, Media

Updated: 17 December 2021; Ref: scu.653082

Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others: ChD 7 Jun 2019

The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and wished to obtain representation.
Held: The adjournment had to be granted, and ‘ I do not consider that Mr Jones can be compelled to be cross-examined or can be put to an election as to whether to rely upon his affidavit evidence or to submit to cross-examination. However, given that very serious allegations of dishonesty, both in respect of attempts to deceive the claimants and attempts to deceive the court, are advanced with some particularity against Mr Jones, if he chooses not to be cross-examined, having received appropriate legal advice, then it may be (and I reach no conclusion on this at the moment) that there is at the very least a risk that the court will draw adverse inferences against him. That is a matter that Mr Jones will need to consider with his legal advisers.’

Henry Carr J
[2019] EWHC 1633 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning QBD 7-Nov-2013
Application for order finding the defendant and others to be in contempt of court in breaching an order as to the use of land for residential purposes.
Held: A committal application has the character of criminal proceedings. The alleged . .
Cited – Inplayer Ltd and Another v Thorogood CA 25-Nov-2014
Appeal against a decision that the first defendant in a chancery action was guilty of two contempts of court by reason of untruthful statements in his affidavit. He complained of procedural irregularities affecting the fairness.
Held: ‘the . .
Cited – Brown v London Borough of Haringey CA 14-May-2015
‘The present appeal once again raises questions of the availability of publicly funded legal representation in proceedings for the committal to prison of individuals said to be in contempt of court in failing to comply with court orders and, if such . .
Cited – Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics CA 1971
The court was asked whether a defendant should be cross-examined on an affidavit sworn by him on an application by the plaintiff to commit him for contempt.
Held: The cross-examination was likely to cover issues in the action and on that basis . .
Cited – Crest Homes Plc v Marks HL 1987
The plaintiffs brought two successive actions against the same defendants (Mr Marks and Wiseoak Homes Ltd) for breach of copyright. They obtained Anton Piller orders in both actions. The documents which the plaintiffs obtained from the defendants in . .
Cited – VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov and Others QBD 18-Nov-2015
Application for the first defendant to be committed for alleged contempt of court for having failed to make disclosure of documents as required by a court order.
Whipple J said: ‘In this case, the extent to which the Defendants are in . .

Cited by:
See Also – Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others (Penalty) ChD 16-Aug-2019
. .
See Also – Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse (A Body Corporate) and Others ChD 16-Aug-2019
Request for committal of a defendant, a solicitor, for contempt of court inter alia for breaches of undertakings given personally by him (and his firm) to pay surplus funds from a transaction amounting to $9.3 million or the sterling equivalent into . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.639286

Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another: CA 15 Jan 2019

The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate with his solicitors and counsel. He had then been remanded in custody overnight despite that that was unnecessary and that it would prevent him obtaining legal advice.
Held:
‘ trial judges frequently warn witnesses not to discuss their evidence whilst still under oath, I have never regarded that as amounting to an order as such nor, in my view, can it be treated as one in this case. The judge (in the passages I have quoted) explained to Mr Jarvis why it was important that he did not discuss his evidence but she did not warn him that if he did discuss his evidence he would be in breach of an order and in contempt of court. An order was never drawn up in the terms of the recital and the language of the alleged order quoted in the recital was not in fact the language used by the judge when she warned Mr Jarvis not to discuss his evidence with anyone. The obvious sanction open to a judge who discovers that a witness has communicated with some third party about his evidence during the course of the trial is to ascertain what was discussed and, if appropriate, to discount or give no weight to the evidence. ‘

Patten, Leggatt, Nicola Davies LJJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 1, [2019] WLR(D) 12, [2019] 1 WLR 2934
Bailii, WLRD
County Courts Act 1984 118(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Hughes Jarvis Limited v Searle Misc 27-Apr-2018
(Oxford County Court) An application was made for the committal for contempt of a party. The court had adjourned overnight while he was giving evidence, and despite being warned against communicating with anyone else, had sent numerous emails to his . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Butterworth CA 1962
The court considered the penalisation of a witness who had given evidence in contempt of the court.
It would be a contempt for someone to threaten or interfere with a witness in order to deter them from giving evidence or in order to persuade . .
Cited – Council of City of Manchester v McCann CA 16-Nov-1998
A threat made against a witness is clearly an insult within the Act, and a threat made as a witness returns home after court is also a contempt even though not strictly in the face of the Court.
Section 118 of the 1984 Act now provides an . .
Cited – Chidzoy v British Broadcasting Corporation EAT 5-Apr-2018
Strike out for unreasonable conduct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
Strike out of claim – unreasonable conduct of proceedings
During a short break in the course of giving evidence at the Full Merits Hearing of her claims, the Claimant participated in a . .
Cited – Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd ChD 1-Nov-1999
The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere . .
Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 14-Nov-2006
On a request for a strike out the test in every case must be what is just and proportionate; and at para 62, as a postscript, that ‘nothing in this judgment affects the correct approach in a case where an application is made to strike out a . .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
Cited – Zahoor and Others v Masood and Others CA 3-Jul-2009
It was argued that the judge should have struck the claim out as an abuse of process on the ground that some at least of the claims were based on forged documents and false written and oral evidence.
Held: Arrow Nominees was authority for the . .
Cited – Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd CA 5-Feb-1988
The agent required the contractual counterparty to pay a bribe of pounds 70,000 to an offshore account.
Held: The bribe was held to be recoverable by the principal whether the principal rescinded or affirmed the contract because it was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.632653

Hughes Jarvis Limited v Searle: Misc 27 Apr 2018

(Oxford County Court) An application was made for the committal for contempt of a party. The court had adjourned overnight while he was giving evidence, and despite being warned against communicating with anyone else, had sent numerous emails to his solicitor and counsel.
Held: The Court abridged the time for notice.

Clarke HHJ
[2018] EW Misc B6 (CC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chidzoy v British Broadcasting Corporation EAT 5-Apr-2018
Strike out for unreasonable conduct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
Strike out of claim – unreasonable conduct of proceedings
During a short break in the course of giving evidence at the Full Merits Hearing of her claims, the Claimant participated in a . .
Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another CA 15-Jan-2019
The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.633114

Douherty v The Chief Constable of Essex Police: CA 30 Jan 2019

The appellant had been committed for contempt being said to have broken a gangs control order made under the 2009 Act. He had not been advised of his right to legal aid for representation.

Green, Nicola Davies DBE LJJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 55
Bailii
Administration of Justice Act 1960 13, Policing and Crime Act 2009, Civil Procedure Rules Part 81
England and Wales

Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.633083

In re L (A Child): CA 22 Mar 2016

U appealed from conviction and sentence of six months for contempt of court. The court used its inherent jurisdiction
Vos LJ said: ‘The process of committal for contempt is a highly technical one as this case shows. But it is highly technical for a very good reason, namely the importance of protecting the rights of those charged with a contempt of court. In cases of an alleged breach of a previous court order, persons should not be at risk of being sent to prison for contempt of court unless (i) they have been served, or otherwise made fully and properly aware in accordance with the rules, of the order they are said to have breached before the alleged breach occurs, (ii) the fact that they have been served or so made aware is established before the committing court, (iii) they have been informed before the hearing of the precise details of the breach that they are alleged to have committed, (iv) they have been informed of their right to remain silent before they give evidence, if they choose to do so, and (v) the allegation of contempt is proved to the criminal standard. The principles as to the need for service have always been axiomatic in civil proceedings where injunctions are frequently made against defendants in their absence. It can be no different in family proceedings.’

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division
[2016] EWCA Civ 173, [2017] 1 FLR 1135, [2016] Fam Law 668
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re M (A Child) (Contempt Procedure) CA 3-Sep-2019
Failures in Applying Contempt Procedures
The appellant challenged the finding that he had been in contempt of court. Working as a paralegal in the case he was said to have disclosed to the Immigration Tribunal, documents from family proceedings without the Family Court’s required consent. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Children, Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.561212

VIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov and Others: QBD 18 Nov 2015

Application for the first defendant to be committed for alleged contempt of court for having failed to make disclosure of documents as required by a court order.
Whipple J said: ‘In this case, the extent to which the Defendants are in continuing breach is in issue. In resolving that factual issue, Mr Milner suggests that it is for the Claimant to seek the Court’s order to allow cross-examination of the First Defendant (as contemnor). He submits as follows in his skeleton: ‘ insofar as [the Claimant] might wish to cross examine [the First Defendant] as to the completeness of his disclosure, that is not permissible without a further application supported by evidence justifying the proposed cross-examination: see JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] 1 WLR 906 at [31]-[36]’. Mr Milner says that because no application has been made, no evidence can be adduced from the First Defendant, and the Court cannot therefore hold his silence against him. This is, in effect, to suggest that the Court is fixed with the First Defendant’s affidavit in which he says that he has now complied with the 21 May 2015 Order (and to repeat Mr Milner’s point about the limited ambit of the hearing, addressed and rejected above, in a different way). Mr Milner argued that this was precisely what Proudman J had decided in Solodchenko (No 2) . Mr Gunning disputed these submissions on the basis that they were procedurally incorrect, noting that Solodchenko (No 2) pre-dated CPR 81 which came into force on 1 October 2012 by virtue of the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules 2012 [SI 2012/2208]. He drew my attention to CPR 81.28 (2) which provides that the respondent to any committal application is entitled to give oral evidence, and if doing so may be cross-examined; but importantly, also to CPR 81.28(3) which provides that the Court ‘ may require or permit any party or other person (other than the respondent) to give oral evidence at the hearing’. Thus, he said, the respondent cannot be compelled to give oral evidence. It followed that it was not for the Claimant to seek any order to cross-examine, because the alleged contemnor, as respondent to the application, has a right to remain silent; but the Court can draw an adverse inference from silence, as set out in the White Book at CPR 81.28.4 :
‘A person accused of contempt, like the defendant in a criminal trial, has the right to remain silent ( Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67 , CA). It is the duty of the court to ensure that the accused person is made aware of that right and also the risk that adverse inferences may be drawn from his silence (Inplayer Limited v Thorogood [2014] EWCA Civ 1511, November 25, 2014, CA, unrep. , at para.41) . . ‘
I agree with the Claimant’s submissions on this point. The fact that the First Defendant has produced some documents, in purported compliance with the 21 May 2015 Order, does not determine the compliance issue in the First Defendant’s favour; nor does it require the Claimant to make any application for cross-examination. Rather, the First Defendant is on notice of the Claimant’s case that the Defendants have failed to comply with the 21 May 2015 Order, and the Claimant is entitled to continue to advance that case, even in the face of purported compliance by the First Defendant since the date of the application. The burden of proof remains on the Claimant throughout, to the criminal standard, and the Claimant can invite the Court to conclude, on the basis of all the evidence in the case, that the Defendants have not yet complied with the 21 May 2015 Order. If the contemnor chooses to remain silent in the face of that dispute, the Court can draw an adverse inference against him, if the Court considers that to be appropriate and fair, and recalling that silence alone cannot prove guilt. This is not to put the burden of proof on the First Defendant; far from it, the burden remains on the Claimant. Proudman J was dealing with a different situation in Solodchenko (No 2) , where she had already held a fact finding hearing and found Mr Kythreotis to be in contempt, before he subsequently purported to comply with the order; and did not concern the application of rules now clearly now set out in CPR 81.’
And: ‘In light of that conclusion, I hardly need to go on to consider what significance the First Defendant’s decision not to give oral evidence might have in relation to my overall evaluation of the First Defendant’s case. It is very clear that there are substantial gaps in the disclosure provided to date by the First Defendant. But the fact is that the matters covered in the First Defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Affidavits are all matters of fact, within the First Defendant’s knowledge. If those matters were being explained truthfully, I would have expected the First Defendant to give evidence to me in person and submit to cross examination, to demonstrate that he really had done everything possible to comply with the 21 May 2015 Order. He did not do that. The fact that the First Defendant did not give evidence, despite his availability for the hearing, does him no credit at all, and I draw an adverse inference against him. The fact that he then put in a Sixth Affidavit, after the hearing, making a number of assertions, supports that adverse inference. The First Defendant is trying to avoid being cross examined. The obvious, adverse, inference to draw is that he is not telling the truth: he knows he has not disclosed all that he can.”

Whipple J
[2015] EWHC 3327 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics CA 1971
The court was asked whether a defendant should be cross-examined on an affidavit sworn by him on an application by the plaintiff to commit him for contempt.
Held: The cross-examination was likely to cover issues in the action and on that basis . .

Cited by:
Cited – Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.555030

Brown v London Borough of Haringey: CA 14 May 2015

‘The present appeal once again raises questions of the availability of publicly funded legal representation in proceedings for the committal to prison of individuals said to be in contempt of court in failing to comply with court orders and, if such representation is available, as to the authority or court that is competent to order the representation to be provided.’
McCombe LJ stressed the importance of informing a respondent to a contempt application of his right to legal aid, which information is essential to a fair trial.

Richards, Lewison, McCombe LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 483, [2015] HLR 30, [2017] 1 WLR 542, [2016] 4 All ER 754
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Legal Aid, Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.546826

Justice for Families Ltd v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 14 Nov 2014

Appeal against refusal of application for writ of habeas corpus after the committal to prison of Mrs C after her refusal to surrender her children as required by a court order.
Held: Totally misconceived.

Sir James Munby P FD, Sharp, Vos LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1477, [2014] WLR(D) 491
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Judicial Review, Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.538876

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning: QBD 7 Nov 2013

Application for order finding the defendant and others to be in contempt of court in breaching an order as to the use of land for residential purposes.
Held: A committal application has the character of criminal proceedings. The alleged contemnor is therefore entitled to legal aid, so that he can be properly represented. As to the availability of public funding for professional representation of a party subject to an application for committal for contempt of court and Regulation 9(v) of the 2013 Regulations, Blake J said: ‘I consider that the present drafting of that regulation combined with the terms of the prescribed form CRM14 are likely to give rise to very real difficulty within the profession in knowing how to apply for legal aid for contempt proceedings in the High Court and the judiciary in knowing how to determine such applications until the matter is clarified. I would hope that following this judgment thought can be given to making appropriate changes to both so that applicants consulting the Regulations will not have to read this judgment to make sense of them, assuming that it has done so.’

Blake J
[2013] EWHC 3390 (QB), [2014] 2 All ER 1095, [2014] 1 Costs LO 85, [2015] 1 WLR 531
Bailii
Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013 9(v)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Inplayer Ltd and Another v Thorogood CA 25-Nov-2014
Appeal against a decision that the first defendant in a chancery action was guilty of two contempts of court by reason of untruthful statements in his affidavit. He complained of procedural irregularities affecting the fairness.
Held: ‘the . .
Cited – Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Contempt of Court, Legal Aid

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.517505

Logicrose Ltd v Southend United Football Club Ltd: CA 5 Feb 1988

The agent required the contractual counterparty to pay a bribe of pounds 70,000 to an offshore account.
Held: The bribe was held to be recoverable by the principal whether the principal rescinded or affirmed the contract because it was a secret profit. ‘The remedy is not confined to cases where the agent has taken a bribe or secret commission in the strictest sense. It is available whenever, without his principal’s knowledge and consent, the agent has put himself in a position where his interest and duty may conflict. A principal is entitled to the disinterested advice of his agent free from the potentially corrupting influence of an interest of his own. Any such private interest, whether actual or contemplated, which is not known and consented to by his principal, disqualifies him.’
Millet LJ: ‘It is well established that a principal who discovers that his agent in a transaction has obtained or arranged to obtain a bribe or secret commission from the other party to the transaction is entitled, in addition to other remedies which may be open to him to rescind the transaction ab initio or, if it is too late to rescind, to bring it to an end for the future.’
An application was made to strike out the action in the middle of the substantive hearing on the ground that the responsible director of the plaintiffs had ‘deliberately suppressed [a crucial document] and, for a time, successfully concealed its existence from the Court.’
Held: The Court’s processes had not been defeated and the proceedings should be allowed to proceed.
Millet LJ said: ‘That is a very serious allegation indeed if true it would deserve the serious consequences for which the defendants ask, but it must be clearly proved . . it does not have to be proved in accordance with the criminal standard of proof. Deliberate disobedience of a peremptory order for discovery is no doubt a contempt and, if proved in accordance with the criminal standard of proof, may, in theory at least, be visited with a fine or imprisonment. But to debar the offender from all further part in the proceedings and to give judgment against him accordingly is not an appropriate response by the Court to contempt. It may, however, be an appropriate response to a failure to comply with the rules relating to discovery, even in the absence of a specific order of the Court, and so in the absence of any contempt, not because that conduct is deserving of punishment but because the failure has rendered it impossible to conduct a fair trial and would make any judgement in favour of the offender unsafe. In my view a litigant is not to be deprived of his right to proper trial as a penalty for his contempt or his defiance of the Court, but only if his conduct has amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court which would render any further proceedings unsatisfactory and prevent the Court from doing justice. Before the Court takes that serious step it needs to satisfied that there is a real risk of this happening.’ and ‘The deliberate and successful suppression of a material document is a serious abuse of the process of the Court and may well merit the exclusion of the offender from all other participation in the trial. The reason is that it makes the fair trial of the action impossible to achieve and any judgment in favour of the offender unsafe. But if the threat of such exclusion produces the missing document, then the object of order 24 rule 16 is achieved. ‘

Millet LJ
Times 05-Mar-1988, [1988] 1 WLR 1256
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Husband’s of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd 1975
The object of Order 24 Rule 16 is not to punish the offender for his conduct, but to secure compliance with the Rules of Court and orders of court relating to discovery, and the fair trial of the action in accordance with the due process of the . .

Cited by:
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc, Blackledge v Blackledge ChD 2-Nov-1999
The applicants sought to strike out a claim under section 459. The two companies sold toiletries, the one as retail agent for the other. They disputed the relationship of the companies, and the use of a trading name. Documents were disclosed which . .
Cited – Landauer Ltd v Comins and Co (a firm) CA 14-May-1991
The first instance Judge had struck out a claim under the provisions of order 24 rule 16(1) in circumstances where a number of relevant documents did not appear on the plaintiffs list of documents and were found to have been destroyed, the . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v Blandford EAT 20-May-1997
The tribunal considered making an order to strike out Lambeth’s case for failure to comply with orders for directions made by the Tribunal. On the question of the circumstances in which a striking out would be justified under rule 4 of the Tribunal . .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Cited – Bilta (Uk) Ltd v Nazir and Others ChD 24-Nov-2010
The company had been wound up by the Revenue on the basis that it had been used for a substantial VAT fraud. The liquidators now sued those said to have participated. A defendant denied the jurisdiction because of a disputed arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another CA 15-Jan-2019
The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court, Agency

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.211359

Attorney-General v Butterworth: CA 1962

The court considered the penalisation of a witness who had given evidence in contempt of the court.
It would be a contempt for someone to threaten or interfere with a witness in order to deter them from giving evidence or in order to persuade them to change their evidence

[1962] 3 All ER 326 CA, [1962] 3 WLR 819, LR 3 RP 327, [1963] 1 QB 696
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
Cited – Regina v Murphy and Another CANI 1990
The two defendants were tried for the murder of two British Army corporals. The prosecution adduced the evidence of a number of television journalists who, in the course of their work, had filmed the scene of the killing. The judge gave leave that . .
Cited – Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another CA 15-Jan-2019
The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.180688

Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd: ChD 1 Nov 1999

The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere with the course of justice. No new category of contempt could be introduced with respect to statements of truth made without being verified.
The policing of statements of truth had to be subject to the same over-riding objectives as applied to other part of the litigation process, and proceedings for contempt should only be brought with the permission of the court or the Attorney-General. Proceedings for contempt of court are public law proceedings and therefore when considering whether to give permission for proceedings to be taken in any particular case the court must have regard to the public interest alone. Though private interests may be affected, because the proceedings are of a public nature ‘[t]he court from which permission is sought will be concerned to see that the case is one in which the public interest requires the committal proceedings to be brought.’
The Vice-Chancellor said: ‘Proceedings for contempt are not private law proceedings. They are public law proceedings. They may in appropriate circumstances be brought by private individuals. They can always be brought by the Attorney General, but private individuals may be able to bring them. An injunction granted in an action between two private individuals restraining one from doing some act which is to the prejudice of the interests of the other can be enforced by committal proceedings brought by the party for whose benefit the injunction was granted. Committal proceedings of that character can be brought without permission. But under CPR 32.14 a private individual can only bring committal proceedings with the permission of the court. The reason for that is the nature of the proceedings. These are not proceedings where the alleged contempt consists of the breach of an order obtained by an individual in protection or furtherance of his own private rights. It is a case of an allegation of public wrong, not private wrong. Interference with the course of justice is plainly a public wrong and it is right therefore that there should be a public control over the launching of proceedings for this species of contempt. The Attorney General has a public function which needs no further explanation. The court from which permission is sought will be concerned to see that the case is one in which the public interest requires the committal proceedings to be brought. I repeat that these are not proceedings brought for the furtherance of private interests. They are brought in the public interest and are in some respects like criminal proceedings. Nonetheless they are civil proceedings and they are civil proceedings to which the overriding objective set out in CPR 1 is therefore applicable. The overriding objective enjoins the court to deal with cases justly, ensuring so far as practicable that the parties are on an equal footing, that expense is saved and that the case is dealt with in ways which are proportionate to the money involved, to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues and the financial position of each party. These are general imperatives which are as relevant, in my opinion, to an application for permission under CPR 32.14 as to any other form of civil proceedings.’

Sir Richard Scott VC
Times 17-Feb-2000, 1999 WL 1048312, [2000] FSR 393, [1999] EWHC 843 (Ch), [2000] CP Rep 39
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Kirk v Walton QBD 24-Jul-2008
kirk_waltonQBD2008
The defendant sought leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant saying that she had had no honest belief in the matters deposed in her statement of truth, in that she had substantially exaggerated her injuries.
Held: . .
Applied – Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v. Ball and Others ChD 17-May-2004
Pumfrey J considered the test to be applied when a party applied for leave to commence proceedings for contempt of court against another party: ‘It seems to me, in the light of the judgment in Malgar v. Leach, that the discretion to permit . .
Cited – Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc (t/a Sony Computer Entertainment Inc) v Ball and Others ChD 17-May-2004
The claimant sought an order for the defendant to be pursued for contempt of court having filed a statement of truth which was known to be false. . .
Cited – KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton CA 20-Nov-2008
The claimant had been sued for the misuse of trademarks by selling motorcycles imported via a parallel market. It claimed that the defendant had filed false evidence in that action, and now appealed a refusal by the judge to bring contempt . .
Cited – Barnes (T/A Pool Motors) v Seabrook and Others Admn 23-Jul-2010
In each of three cases, the former defendants sought leave to bring claims for contempt of court in respect of what it said were fraudulent claims by the respondents. The defendants argued that a party had first to go to the Attorney General.
Cited – Hydropool Hot Tubs Ltd v Roberjot and Another ChD 4-Feb-2011
The parties disputed ownership of a customer database. An interim order had been made prohibiting the defendants’ from its use pending trial. A mandatory order had been made for the disclosure of a list of contacts made, and the claimant complained . .
Cited – Nield and Another v Loveday and Another Admn 13-Jul-2011
The court considered the institution of proceedings for contempt of court based upon an allegation that a document filed in court proceedings and supported by a statement of truth was false. In this case the defendant argued that the first claimant . .
Cited – Stobart Group Ltd and Others v Elliott QBD 11-Apr-2013
The defendant applied to the court for various officers of the cliamant companies to be subject to contempt proceedings. The claimants asked the court to strike of the defendant’s counterclaim and to make a civil restraint order against him. There . .
Cited – Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd TCC 28-Feb-2013
The defendant sought permission to bring contempt proceedings against former directors of the claimant company, saying that by means of false evidence they had secured an arbitration verdict.
Held: A reckless disregard for the truth or falsity . .
Cited – Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another CA 15-Jan-2019
The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.83345

Re Dad: FD 15 Sep 2015

Return hearing following Collection order with arrest of father. The Court heard and reinforced severe criticism of the standard wording used in the Order, particularly in view of its failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules as regards penal notices.
Held: ‘ this is not a situation where I can waive the procedural defect. All applications to commit require proper adherence to the requirements of any enactment and rule of court. In the present case there is a serious defect in the order upon which the application to commit is based. I simply cannot commit Mr C to prison for any breach of the order, however egregious. In my view that has the consequence that I must indeed strike out the application as a threshold decision, and Mr C must not be required to give any evidence or to defend himself on the substance of this application.’

Holman J
[2015] EWHC 2655 (Fam)
Bailii
Family Procedure Rules 2010
England and Wales

Contempt of Court

Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.552781

Buckley v Crawford: QBD 1 Dec 1892

An order was made in interpleader proceedings that the sheriff should sell the goods seized and pay the claimant, the execution creditor undertaking to make good any deficiency on sale. There was a deficiency, and the master ordered that the execution creditor should pay the amount to the claimant. Default being made in payment, an order was made committing the execution creditor for contempt of court. There was no proof that he had means to pay.
Held: that the case was one of default in payment of a sum of money, within the meaning of s. 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Viet. c. 62), and that an order of commitment could not be made.
Wills J said: ‘This was a simple order to pay money, but it is sought to treat the default in obeying the order as a contempt of court, on the ground that the order for payment was made in pursuance of an undertaking which had been given by the plaintiff. There is however no difference between an order to pay money made in pursuance of an undertaking and any other order to pay a sum of money. It is true that the undertaking is the original ground of the liability, but attachment is never granted except for disobedience of an order to do or abstain from doing some specific thing. Here the only order that could be made in pursuance of the undertaking is to pay the money. The words of the Debtors Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 4, shew that under such circumstances, if the case does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned, there can be no imprisonment for default in payment, for the money is due as a debt.’

Wills J
[1893] 1 QB 105, [1892] UKLawRpKQB 212
Debtors Act 1869 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hussain v Vaswani and Others CA 18-Sep-2020
Breach of Undertaking went Beyond Debt
The tenant had obtained a stay of execution of a warrant for possession, by undertaking to discharge the arrears. He failed to pay, and the Court now considered whether such a failure was a contempt with a possible imprisonment for punishment. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.654050

Carter v Roberts: ChD 1903

The parties to a partnership dispute respectively undertook to pay all sums of money received by them into a particular account pending trial. One of the parties allegedly failed to honour his undertaking, and the other party sought his committal, or else that he be at liberty to issue a writ of attachment against the alleged defaulter. Counsel for the defendant submitted, inter alia, that the motion to commit must fail because no time limit had been set for the fulfilment of the undertaking, and that therefore he could not be said to be in breach.
Held: The case was not within any exception to the Debtors Act, 1869. The undertaking in fact was merely to pay into a joint account to await the decision of the court

Byrne J
[1903] 2 Ch 312
Debtors Act 1869 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
Distinguished – Cotton v Heyl ChD 1939
Mr Cotton brought proceedings against Mr Heyl and a company which were compromised on the terms of a Tomlin order which contained an undertaking by Mr Heyl to pay Mr Cotton pounds 1,000 forthwith and pounds 4,000 out of the first monies received by . .
Cited – Hussain v Vaswani and Others CA 18-Sep-2020
Breach of Undertaking went Beyond Debt
The tenant had obtained a stay of execution of a warrant for possession, by undertaking to discharge the arrears. He failed to pay, and the Court now considered whether such a failure was a contempt with a possible imprisonment for punishment. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.654052

Prosser v Prosser: ChD 2011

A consent order had been made in proceedings between two brothers which provided that the respondent should instruct the solicitors acting for him on the sale of his property that the proceeds of sale were to be remitted to a nominated bank account. The respondent did not comply with the order and the applicant applied for him to be committed to prison.
Held: Vos J considered (inter alia) whether section 4 of Debtors Act 1869 prevented the order being enforced by committal, it being common ground that none of the exceptions applied.
Having considered Bates v Bates and an obiter passage from the judgment of Purchas LJ in Graham v Graham [1992] 2 FLR 406 at 414-415 commenting on Bates v Bates, Vos J said at [102]:
‘It seems to me that in reality, as I have said, there was probably very little between the two Lords Justices in Bates v. Bates. Both of them were saying in effect that where there is an order for the payment of money or the giving of security, but not the payment of an ordinary debt and not the payment of money directly to the claimant, then section 4 of the Debtors Act is not engaged. As it seems to me, that is the ratio of Bates v. Bates which I must follow and nothing that Purchas LJ says in Graham v. Graham casts any doubt whatever upon it.’
Section 4 did not apply because the order was one to give instructions to place monies in a deposit account when they arose by way of proceeds of sale of the property, and thus the case was analogous to Bates v Bates.

Vos J
[2011] EWHC 2172 (Ch)
Debtors Act 1869 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bates v Bates (No 2) CA 21-Dec-1888
W petitioned for judicial separation from her husband on the ground of cruelty. An order was made that the respondent should pay the petitioner’s solicitor pounds 41 odd to cover costs already incurred and should pay into court pounds 40 as security . .
Cited – Graham v Graham CA 1992
. .

Cited by:
Cited – Hussain v Vaswani and Others CA 18-Sep-2020
Breach of Undertaking went Beyond Debt
The tenant had obtained a stay of execution of a warrant for possession, by undertaking to discharge the arrears. He failed to pay, and the Court now considered whether such a failure was a contempt with a possible imprisonment for punishment. The . .
Cited – Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse (A Body Corporate) and Others ChD 16-Aug-2019
Request for committal of a defendant, a solicitor, for contempt of court inter alia for breaches of undertakings given personally by him (and his firm) to pay surplus funds from a transaction amounting to $9.3 million or the sterling equivalent into . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.654053

Graham v Graham: CA 1992

Purchas LJ
[1992] 2 FLR 406
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bates v Bates (No 2) CA 21-Dec-1888
W petitioned for judicial separation from her husband on the ground of cruelty. An order was made that the respondent should pay the petitioner’s solicitor pounds 41 odd to cover costs already incurred and should pay into court pounds 40 as security . .

Cited by:
Cited – Prosser v Prosser ChD 2011
A consent order had been made in proceedings between two brothers which provided that the respondent should instruct the solicitors acting for him on the sale of his property that the proceeds of sale were to be remitted to a nominated bank account. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.654054

Cotton v Heyl: ChD 1939

Mr Cotton brought proceedings against Mr Heyl and a company which were compromised on the terms of a Tomlin order which contained an undertaking by Mr Heyl to pay Mr Cotton pounds 1,000 forthwith and pounds 4,000 out of the first monies received by or on behalf of Mr Heyl from the sale or licensing of certain patents. At that time, Mr Cotton was aware that Mr Heyl had already disposed of half of his interest in the patents. The pounds 1,000 was duly paid. Subsequently Mr Heyl sold the remaining half of his interest for pounds 10,000 payable in stages, but failed to pay Mr Cotton the sum of pounds 4,000. Mr Cotton applied for an order for committal alternatively leave to issue a writ of attachment against Mr Heyl.
Held: the undertaking was caught by section 4, but that the exception contained in subsection (3) applied, although The order was refused, since no time for payment had been specified.
The undertaking was caught by section 4, but the exception contained in subsection (3) applied and an undertaking to money could not be enforced by committal or attachment unless one of the exceptions applied.
Luxmoore J said: ‘My attention has been called to a decision of Byrne J. in Carter v. Roberts [1903] 2 Ch 312. In that case the defendant gave an undertaking as also did the plaintiff ‘to pay all sums of money which shall be received by them in respect of the matters in dispute in this action to the credit of the partnership account of the plaintiff and defendant with [certain banks].’ . . The learned judge decided that that case was not within any exception to the Debtors Act, 1869. The undertaking in fact was merely to pay into a joint account to await the decision of the court, and with all possible respect to the learned judge it is a little difficult to see how this was an order for payment of money covered by the Debtors Act at all. Indeed the decision hardly seems to be in accord with what was said by the Court of Appeal in the case of Bates v. Bates. [He proceeded to quote from the judgment of Lindley LJ.] I am satisfied in the present case that there has been a breach of an undertaking which is within the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4.’

Luxmoore J
[1930] 1 Ch 510
Debtors Act 1869 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Carter v Roberts ChD 1903
The parties to a partnership dispute respectively undertook to pay all sums of money received by them into a particular account pending trial. One of the parties allegedly failed to honour his undertaking, and the other party sought his committal, . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hussain v Vaswani and Others CA 18-Sep-2020
Breach of Undertaking went Beyond Debt
The tenant had obtained a stay of execution of a warrant for possession, by undertaking to discharge the arrears. He failed to pay, and the Court now considered whether such a failure was a contempt with a possible imprisonment for punishment. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.654051

Mckendrick v The Financial Conduct Authority: CA 28 Mar 2019

Appeal from sentence for contempt of court – Defendant breaching terms of worldwide freezing order – Defendant committed to six-month prison sentence
‘In deciding what sentence to impose for a contempt of court, the judge has to weigh and assess a number of factors. This court is reluctant to interfere with decisions of that nature, and will generally only do so if the judge: (i) Made an error of principle; (ii) Took into account immaterial factors or failed to take into account material factors; or (iii) Reached a decision which was plainly wrong in that it was outside the range of decisions reasonably open to the judge. See Mersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd [2007] EWCA Civ 101 , at paras 35-36, Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1260; [2008] 1 WLR 748, at para 16, Stuart v Goldberg Linde [2008] EWCA Civ 2; [2008] 1 WLR 823, at paras 76 and 81 and the very recent decision of this court in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Zafar [2019] EWCA 392 (Civ), at para 44.
It follows from that approach that there will be few cases in which a contemnor will be able successfully to challenge a sentence as being excessive. If however this court is satisfied that the sentence was ‘wrong’ on one of the above grounds, it will reverse the decision below and either remit the case to the judge for further consideration of sanction or substitute its own decision.
In Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Zafar, at para 58 this court considered the correct approach to sentencing for a contempt of court involving a false statement verified by a statement of truth. We consider that a similar approach should be adopted when-as in this case-a court is sentencing for contempt of court of the kind which involves one or more breaches of an order of the court. The court should first consider (as a criminal court would do) the culpability of the contemnor and the harm caused, intended or likely to be caused by the breach of the order. In this regard, aggravating or mitigating factors which are likely to arise for consideration will often include some of those identified by Popplewell J in the Asia Islamic Trade Finance Fund case (see para 32 above). Having determined the seriousness of the case, the court must consider whether a fine would be a sufficient penalty. If it would, committal to prison cannot be justified, even if the contemnor’s means are so limited that the amount of the fine must be modest.
Breach of a court order is always serious, because it undermines the administration of justice. We therefore agree with the observations of Jackson LJ in the Solodchenko case (see para 31 above) as to the inherent seriousness of a breach of a court order, and as to the likelihood that nothing other than a prison sentence will suffice to punish such a serious contempt of court. The length of that sentence will, of course, depend on all the circumstances of the case, but again we agree with the observations of Jackson LJ as to the length of sentence which may often be appropriate. Mr Underwood was correct to submit that the decision as to the length of sentence appropriate in a particular case must take into account that the maximum sentence is committal to prison for two years. However, because the maximum term is comparatively short, we do not think that the maximum can be reserved for the very worst sort of contempt which can be imagined. Rather, there will be a comparatively broad range of conduct which can fairly be regarded as falling within the most serious category and as therefore justifying a sentence at or near the maximum.’

Hamblen, Holroyde LJJ
[2019] EWCA Civ 524, [2019] WLR(D) 192, [2019] 4 WLR 65
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.635242

Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse (A Body Corporate) and Others: ChD 16 Aug 2019

Request for committal of a defendant, a solicitor, for contempt of court inter alia for breaches of undertakings given personally by him (and his firm) to pay surplus funds from a transaction amounting to $9.3 million or the sterling equivalent into court and to procure repayment of a loan of pounds 4.9 million to a lender called Dragonfly. he failed to do so. One of the issues which Zacaroli J had to consider was whether section 4 of the 1869 Act prevented the undertakings being enforced by committal. It was agreed that, in the light of Prosser v Prosser, section 4 did not apply to the undertaking in relation to the surplus funds, but it was argued that it did apply to the undertaking in relation to the repayment to Dragonfly.
Held: Section 4 did not apply: ‘Mr Halpern maintains that the Debtors Act applies to the undertaking in respect of the monies drawn down under the Dragonfly Facility, because that was an undertaking to repay money to Dragonfly. I disagree. The first task is to construe the undertaking. As I have pointed out, it was given in circumstances where Mr Jones had assured the court that the funds drawn down under the facility were sitting in a separate account with Hambros and that those funds were available to be transferred to Dragonfly (subject only to there being any problem arising from the terms of the facility itself). In my judgment, the undertaking to ‘procure’ that the facility was discharged is to be understood as an undertaking to procure that the funds so described would be transferred to Dragonfly. There is no question, therefore, of Mr Jones being required to ‘pay’ a debt which he owed, nor of paying anything from his own funds. Ms Felix made much of the point that the claimant would no doubt have been content if any money had been procured by Mr Jones, including from his own funds. I suspect that is correct, but there is an important difference between what the claimant would have been content with and what the undertaking, properly construed, required. The purpose of the Debtors Act is clearly not engaged in these circumstances.’

Zacaroli J
[2019] EWHC 2249 (Ch), [2020] PNLR 1
Bailii
Debtors Act 1869 4
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .
Cited – Prosser v Prosser ChD 2011
A consent order had been made in proceedings between two brothers which provided that the respondent should instruct the solicitors acting for him on the sale of his property that the proceeds of sale were to be remitted to a nominated bank account. . .

Cited by:
Contempt Finding – Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others (Penalty) ChD 16-Aug-2019
. .
Cited – Hussain v Vaswani and Others CA 18-Sep-2020
Breach of Undertaking went Beyond Debt
The tenant had obtained a stay of execution of a warrant for possession, by undertaking to discharge the arrears. He failed to pay, and the Court now considered whether such a failure was a contempt with a possible imprisonment for punishment. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.640886

Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others (Penalty): ChD 16 Aug 2019

[2019] EWHC 2264 (Ch)
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 14
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Discovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .
Contempt Finding – Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse (A Body Corporate) and Others ChD 16-Aug-2019
Request for committal of a defendant, a solicitor, for contempt of court inter alia for breaches of undertakings given personally by him (and his firm) to pay surplus funds from a transaction amounting to $9.3 million or the sterling equivalent into . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.640887

Bedfordshire Police Constabulary v RU and Another: FD 26 Jul 2013

The court was asked whether a police force can apply for committal for alleged breach of a forced marriage protection order made under Part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996 when the police were not the applicants who had obtained the relevant order.
Held: That the police force could not; it lacked standing to make the application.

Holman J
[2013] EWHC 2350 (Fam)
Bailii
Family Law Act 1996
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Jones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Contempt of Court, Family

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.513767

The Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others: ChD 30 Jan 2003

The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a right not to incriminate himself, and gave no evidence. He now claimed to have been acting under duress.
Held: Duress required to be shown immediate threats of violence, which remained operative, to which a reasonable person would have taken heed, and an inability to escape the threat. The defendant had failed to establish duress. These proceedings were civil and it was not for the claimant to establish the absence of duress. Evidence of duress in civil contempt proceedings goes merely as a mitigation, and is not a defence. This is not incompatible with the defendants’ human rights. The defendant had not purged his contempt even now, and a sentence of immediate imprisonment of four months was appropriate.

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Times 11-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 91 (Ch), Times 20-Mar-2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics CA 1971
The court was asked whether a defendant should be cross-examined on an affidavit sworn by him on an application by the plaintiff to commit him for contempt.
Held: The cross-examination was likely to cover issues in the action and on that basis . .
Cited – Cobra Golf Inc and Another v Rata and Others ChD 11-Oct-1996
An Anton Piller order was wrongfully made where it was used in order to get information to found a later prosecution. The privilege against self incrimination is available under Section 14 of the 1968 Act in contempt proceedings despite the fact . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch HL 1975
The House considered the availability of duress as a defence on a charge of aiding and abetting murder. Referring to the basic elements of criminal liability, mens rea and actus reus: ‘Both terms have, however, justified themselves by their . .
Cited – Regina v Hudson and Taylor CACD 17-Mar-1971
Two teenage girls committed perjury by failing to identify the defendant. When prosecuted they pleaded duress, on the basis that they had been warned by a group, including a man with a reputation for violence, that if they identified the defendant . .
Cited – Regina v Sharpe 1987
A member of a gang of robbers sought to establish a defence of duress. The trial judge had directed the jury ‘but in my judgment the defence of duress is not available to an accused who voluntarily exposes and submits himself to illegal compulsion . . .
Cited – Coca-Cola Co and Another v Gilbey and Others ChD 10-Oct-1995
A defendant in an infringement case was ordered to provide information on his associate co-infringers despite his claimed risk of violence. Such a threat was no defence to an action for contempt of court. Duress in civil cases goes as to mitigation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Evidence

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178786

Winter v Winter: FD 30 Jun 2010

Two separate applications in relation to one set of facts. They relate (i) to a committal application for the breach of an order made by Deputy High Court Judge Mr Philip Moor QC on about 18 December 2009 and (ii) a judgment summons for the breach of an order made by Walker DJ.

Mrs Justice Baron
[2010] EWHC 3825 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Contempt of Court

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.510877

Norman and Another v Adler and Another: Admn 12 Nov 2021

The claimants, a married couple, ask the court to set aside an order made on the papers by Sir Ross Cranston. He refused the claimants’ application for permission to bring contempt proceedings against the defendant police officers arising from their part in obtaining a warrant on

Mr Justice Kerr
[2021] EWHC 3029 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Contempt of Court

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.669804

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co and Another v Al Refai and Others: CA 23 May 2014

The court considered the extra-territorial reach of proceedings for civil contempt against the director of a foreign company which has instituted proceedings in this jurisdiction but has not complied with an order of the court where the director is a foreign national and outside the jurisdiction.

Richards, Beatson, Briggs LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 715
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company and Another v Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and Others ComC 11-Apr-2014
Applications as to management of committal application. Andrew Smith J had ruled in favour of the applicant/defendant that without notice orders made against them should be discharged because the claimants had misled the court and failed to comply . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525868

Tinkler and Another v Elliott: CA 7 May 2014

The defendant appealed against permission given to the claimant to bring allegations of contempt of court. The claimant was acting in person.

Arden, Gloster, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 564
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Tinkler and Another v Elliott CA 7-Jul-2011
Application for leave to appeal. Litigant in person failing to understand CPR. Leave granted. . .
See Also – Tinkler and Another v Elliott QBD 15-Mar-2012
The defendant, subject to a civil restraint order, sought leave to appeal against judgment entered against him in his absence. . .
See Also – Tinkler and Another v Elliott CA 10-Oct-2012
The claimant was a litigant in person who said that he had misunderstood the relevant provision of the CPR.
Maurice Kay LJ said: ‘I accept that there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525122

Committal for Contempt of Court (Practice Guidance – Supplemental): CoP 4 Jun 2013

[2013] EWCOP B7
Bailii
Citing:
See Also – Committal for Contempt of Court (Practice Guidance) COP 3-May-2013
The court gave guidance on the practice to be followed on applications for committal for contempt of court in the Court of Protection, particularly as to the requirements for decisions to be made in public. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Health

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.524702

Hope v Krejci: FD 31 Jan 2014

The wife complained that the husband was in contempt in court in not having transferred to the wife, pursuant to financial remedy orders, two Mercedes motor cars, one of which has a personalised number plate LB01, and a Harley Davidson motorcycle.

Bodey J
[2014] EWHC B5 (Fam)
Bailii
England and Wales

Family, Contempt of Court

Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.521961

Wear Valley District Council v Robson: CA 14 Nov 2008

Appeal against a decision finding that the appellant was in contempt of an Anti-social Behaviour Injunction Order made in the Bishop Auckland County Court on 7 October 2008 and committed the appellant to prison for six months.

[2008] EWCA Civ 1470, [2009] HLR 27
Bailii
England and Wales

Housing, Contempt of Court

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.279989

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company (C) and Another v Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al-Refai and Others: QBD 20 Dec 2013

The defendants sought an order for the committal of officers of the clamant for having failed to comply with court orders and a preservation undertaking, saying that the claimant had destroyed evidence.
Held: The claimants said that such an order was not available where the company’s officers were not within the jurisdiction.

Andrew Smith J
[2013] EWHC 4112 (QB), [2014] WLR(D) 9
Bailii, WLRD
Citing:
See Also – Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company v Al Refai and Others ComC 12-Dec-2012
The defendants applied to set aside an earlier order made without notice, saying that the claimants had not make full and frank disclosure and misled the court in their evidence and submissions and had not complied with an associated undertaking to . .

Cited by:
See Also – Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company and Another v Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and Others ComC 11-Apr-2014
Applications as to management of committal application. Andrew Smith J had ruled in favour of the applicant/defendant that without notice orders made against them should be discharged because the claimants had misled the court and failed to comply . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Natural Justice, Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519768

Dallas v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Nov 2013

The applicant challenged her conviction for contempt of court in that whilst a juror, she researched the case before her on the internet, discovering that the defendant had faced an earlier allegation broadly similar. She now said that the conviction orose from failure to follow a direction, not an order. The court set the question for the parties: ‘Did the act of which the applicant was convicted constitute a ‘criminal offence under national law’ at the time when it was committed, for the purposes of Article 7 of the Convention, having regard to the test for contempt of court set out and applied by the Divisional Court in paragraph 38 of its judgment and the test outlined in previous domestic judgment judgments’

38395/12 – Communicated Case, [2013] ECHR 1232, [2014] ECHR 1247
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Sport Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-May-1991
The newspaper was accused of disclosing details of the previous convictions of an absconded suspect in a murder investigation, despite a prior warning from the police that any such publication would be likely to prejudice future criminal . .
Cited – Schot and Another, v Regina CACD 12-May-1997
Jurors, after retirement refused to deliver a verdict claiming personal reasons. The were summoned to court to answer charges of contempt of court. Explaining the contempt proceedings that the jurors faced, the trial judge said: ‘[I]n so far as . .
Cited – Attorney General v Fraill and Another Admn 16-Jun-2011
The trial judge had directed his jury at a criminal trial: ‘You will make your decision about this case based solely upon the evidence which you hear during this trial, in this courtroom and upon nothing else. Most of us these days have access to . .
At Admn – Attorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Contempt of Court

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518835

Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings Bv and Another (Commital): CA 26 Nov 2013

Appeal against permission to apply to commit the applicant for alleged contempt.

Patten, Tomlinson, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1540
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cavendish Square Holdings Bv and Another v El Makdessi ComC 14-Dec-2012
The parties disputed whether clauses in a share sale agreement between them amounted to a penalty and as such were rendered unenforeable.
Held: Burton J felt able to escape those constraints, and concluded that the two provisions were valid . .
Appeal from – Cavendish Square Holdings Bv and Another v El Makdessi ComC 18-Dec-2012
Consequential matters – application for committal for contempt. . .

Cited by:
See Also – El Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings Bv and Another CA 26-Nov-2013
The appellants had agreed for the sale of his company by way of a share sale agreement. The price to be paid was to vary accoriding to the operating profits. A large part of the price reflected goodwill. The agreement contained a clause providing . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518422

Director of Public Prosecutions v Scarlett: CACD 7 Feb 2000

A defendant subject to a confiscation order in criminal proceedings for drugs related offences could be ordered to repatriate assets from banks accounts held abroad. The absence of an explicit power in this behalf did not prevent the order because of the wide power to make such ancillary orders to ensure compliance with an order as appeared necessary. An additional punishment for contempt for failing to obey was not punishing him twice, and he could purge the contempt if he chose.

Times 07-Feb-2000
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Banking, Contempt of Court

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.80043

JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and Others: CA 28 Oct 2011

The defendant appealed against a sentenced for contempt of court. He said that the sentence should have been at worst an order for costs. He had been chairman of the claimant bank, and stood accused of fraud.
Held: In some cases the sanction provides an incentive for belated compliance, because the contemnor may seek a reduction or discharge of sentence if he subsequently purges his contempt by complying with the court order in question.

Lord Neuberger MR, Carnwath, Jackson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 1241, [2012] 1 WLR 350, [2012] Lloyd’s Rep FC 77
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 12
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and others ChD 2-Nov-2010
The court consider its sentence on one of the defendants found to be in contempt of court.
Held: Mr Kythreotis was sentenced on the basis that the contempt had been purged, without making any finding as to whether there had been full and . .

Cited by:
Cited – National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others QBD 17-Nov-2021
The court considered allegations of contempt of court by protesters disobeying court injunctions.
Held: The allegations were variously proved, and indeed were largely uncontested. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed ranging up to 6 months: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.448069

Secretary of State for Transport and Another v Cuciurean: ChD 16 Oct 2020

Sentencing after finding of contempt.
Held: It is not only the applicant but the court – and, we would add, the public – which has an interest in deterring disobedience to its orders and in upholding the rule of law.

Mr Justice Marcus Smith
[2020] EWHC 2723 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Cuciurean v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another CA 16-Mar-2021
Appeal against findings of contempt of court by breach of an injunction prohibiting trespass on land, and against the sanctions imposed. The breaches were committed as part of a protest against the construction of the HS2 railway line.
Held: . .
Cited – National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others QBD 17-Nov-2021
The court considered allegations of contempt of court by protesters disobeying court injunctions.
Held: The allegations were variously proved, and indeed were largely uncontested. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed ranging up to 6 months: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.655199

Longhurst Homes Ltd v Killen: CA 11 Mar 2008

Appeal against sentence of nine months for contempt of court. Hughes LJ considered the ‘protective’ effect of continuing to keep the contemnor in prison and thus into whether an order for early discharge would be likely to lead to further breaches of the injunction and thus to compromise the safety of those for whose protection it was devised.
There is no tariff for sanctions for contempt of court, because every case depends on its own facts.

Hughes LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 402
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – CJ v Flintshire Borough Council CA 15-Apr-2010
The applicant appealed against a refusal to allow his early release from prison having been sentenced to 21 months for contempts of court.
Held: The appeal failed. The court set out eight questions which might be asked before allowing such a . .
Cited – National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others QBD 17-Nov-2021
The court considered allegations of contempt of court by protesters disobeying court injunctions.
Held: The allegations were variously proved, and indeed were largely uncontested. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed ranging up to 6 months: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.267227

Her Majestys Attorney General v Crosland: SC 10 May 2021

Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for permission to pursue an application for committal for contempt concerns an alleged breach of an embargo on publication of a judgment of the Supreme Court.
Held: ‘there is no principle which justifies treating the conscientious motives of the protestor as a licence to flout court orders with impunity’

Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens
[2021] UKSC 15, [2021] 4 WLR 103
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others QBD 17-Nov-2021
The court considered allegations of contempt of court by protesters disobeying court injunctions.
Held: The allegations were variously proved, and indeed were largely uncontested. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed ranging up to 6 months: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.662465

National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others: QBD 17 Nov 2021

The court considered allegations of contempt of court by protesters disobeying court injunctions.
Held: The allegations were variously proved, and indeed were largely uncontested. Sentences of imprisonment were imposed ranging up to 6 months: ‘By deliberately defying the M25 Order, these defendants broke the social contract under which in a democratic society the public can properly be expected to tolerate peaceful protest. This was bound to give rise to frustration and anger, which carried with it the prospect that the defendants’ own safety and the safety of others would be put at risk; and that members of the community might take the law into their own hands in trying to deal with the disruption the protest had caused. We consider this a proper inference to draw from all the evidence we have seen, including the proximity of the protestors to heavy traffic at a busy time of day before the police arrived and the attempts of some of the defendants to go back into the road when traffic started flowing again.’

Dame Victoria Sharp P
[2021] EWHC 3078 (QB)
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for Transport and Another v Cuciurean ChD 16-Oct-2020
Sentencing after finding of contempt.
Held: It is not only the applicant but the court – and, we would add, the public – which has an interest in deterring disobedience to its orders and in upholding the rule of law. . .
Cited – Cuciurean v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another CA 16-Mar-2021
Appeal against findings of contempt of court by breach of an injunction prohibiting trespass on land, and against the sanctions imposed. The breaches were committed as part of a protest against the construction of the HS2 railway line.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
Cited – Longhurst Homes Ltd v Killen CA 11-Mar-2008
Appeal against sentence of nine months for contempt of court. Hughes LJ considered the ‘protective’ effect of continuing to keep the contemnor in prison and thus into whether an order for early discharge would be likely to lead to further breaches . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and Others CA 28-Oct-2011
The defendant appealed against a sentenced for contempt of court. He said that the sentence should have been at worst an order for costs. He had been chairman of the claimant bank, and stood accused of fraud.
Held: In some cases the sanction . .
Cited – Roberts and Others v Regina CACD 6-Dec-2018
Sentencing of Political Protesters
The defendants appealed against sentences for causing a public nuisance. They had been protesting against fracking by climbing aboard a lorry and blocking a main road for several days.
Held: The appeals from immediate custodial sentences were . .
Cited – Her Majestys Attorney General v Crosland SC 10-May-2021
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for permission to pursue an application for committal for contempt concerns an alleged breach of an embargo on publication of a judgment of the Supreme Court.
Held: ‘there is no principle which . .

Cited by:
Main judgment – National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin and Others (Costs) QBD 18-Nov-2021
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.669942

Money v AB: ChD 10 Nov 2021

Anonymity – balance in favour of open justice

Ruling on an application by the Defendant for anonymity.
Held: Refused: ‘The mental health condition of the Defendant and the impact of the judgment on his family relationships are, therefore, relevant factors to take into account, but they do not of themselves mean that anonymity should be granted. Rather, it is necessary to consider all of the circumstances of the case, and balance the competing interests of the Defendant, on the one hand, and the public interest in open justice, on the other.’

Mrs Justice Bacon
[2021] EWHC 2999 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Banerjee (No 2) ChD 19-Jun-2009
The court was asked whether the taxpayer dermatologist could deduct the expenses of attending educational courses, conferences and meetings, including associated costs of travel and accommodation.
Held: She could.
The defendant requested . .
Cited – MX v Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust and Others CA 17-Feb-2015
Application was made for approval of a compromise of a claim for damages for personal injury for the child. The court now considered whether an order should be made to protect the identity of the six year old claimant.
Held: An order should . .
Cited – Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon Admn 26-Mar-2021
Conditions for Anonymity Orders
The claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s failure to provide suitable accommodation under its duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act. The Defendant admitted breach of its statutory duty because the accommodation that it was providing . .
Cited – XXX v Camden London Borough Council CA 11-Nov-2020
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test
XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought . .
Cited – Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust QBD 8-Mar-2019
The Claimant sought damages for psychiatric injury arising out of the stillbirth of her daughter, and contended that if distressing details about the stillbirth and her subsequent mental illness were publicly reported, then that would further damage . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.669820

HM Attorney General v Davey: Admn 29 Jul 2013

The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had researched the internet about allegations against the defendants not put to the jury.
Held: Both defendants were guilty of contempt.
There were however inconsistencies in the directions given and this was a matter which might be taken up by the Rules Committee.

Sir James Munby P, Sweeney J
[2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc CA 1987
The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd HL 1991
Injunctions had been granted to preserve the status quo in proceedings brought to prevent the publication of the book ‘Spycatcher’. The defendants published extracts, and now appealed a finding that they had acted in contempt.
Held: The . .
Cited – Attorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .

Cited by:
Cited – HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .
Cited – HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513743

JSC BTA Bank v Ereshchenko (2): CA 4 Jul 2013

The bank appealed against a finding, on its application for the committal of the defendant for contempt of court on an allegation that he had given dishonest evidence, that it had not been proved that he had in fact done so.
Held: The appeal failed.

Lloyd, Elias, Beatson LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 1961, [2013] EWCA Civ 829
Bailii, Bailii
England and Wales

Contempt of Court

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513696