Daltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others: ChD 3 May 2005

Application was made for leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court. David Richards J said that: ‘Allegations that statements of case and witness statements contain deliberately false statements are by no means uncommon and, in a fair number of cases, the allegations are well-founded. If parties thought that they could gain an advantage by singling out these statements and making them the subject of a committal application, the usual process of litigation would be seriously disrupted. In general the proper time for determining the truth or falsity of these statements is at trial, when all the relevant issues of fact are before the court and the statements can be considered against the totality of the evidence. Further, the court will then decide all the issues according to the civil standard of proof and will not be applying the criminal standard to isolated issues, as must happen on an application under CPR Part 32.14.’

David Richards J
[2005] EWHC 749 (Ch)
Civil Procedure Rules 32.14
England and Wales
CitedBird v Hadkinson ChD 4-Mar-1999
A party ordered to make disclosure in Mareva proceedings, could be found in contempt where the answers given were technically true, but misleading because of their incompleteness. The party has a clear duty to provide full and accurate disclosure. A . .
See AlsoDaltel Europe Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others v Hassan Ali Makki ChD 17-Jun-2004
. .

Cited by:
CitedKJM 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 . .
See AlsoDaltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others ChD 21-Oct-2005
. .
Appeal fromDaltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others CA 28-Feb-2006
The defendant had breached freezing orders and had verified statements put before the court without honestly believing them. He now challenged the subsequent contempt proceedings saying that they were criminal within section 25 of the 1988 Act and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.224548