Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2): HL 25 Nov 1994

The actions of company employees, acting in the course of their employment and in contempt may put the company employer in contempt also, and even though the company may have given explicit instructions that no infringing agreement should be entered into.


Independent 30-Nov-1994, Times 25-Nov-1994, Gazette 05-Jan-1995, [1995] 1 AC 456


Appeal fromIn Re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) CA 8-Jul-1993
An employer was not liable for its employee’s action in contempt of court against the company’s clear instructions with regard to anti-competitive agreements. . .
See AlsoDirector General of Fair Trading v Smiths Concrete: re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete 1992
For a person to be found in contempt of a court order it is necessary to show that that he knew of the relevant order and with that knowledge he intended to do the act which amounted to a breach of the court order. It is not necessary to show that . .

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedGulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd v Idisi ComC 22-Nov-2000
Application to commit defendant to prison for contempt of court. . .
CitedFerguson v British Gas Trading Ltd CA 10-Feb-2009
Harassment to Criminal Level needed to Convict
The claimant had been a customer of the defendant, but had moved to another supplier. She was then subjected to a constant stream of threatening letters which she could not stop despite re-assurances and complaints. The defendant now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Company, Vicarious Liability

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82207