Director 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 he intended to disobey the court order.
References: [1992] QB 212
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • See Also – In 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. . .
    (Times 08-Jul-93, Independent 14-Jul-93)
  • See Also – 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 . .
    (Independent 30-Nov-94, Times 25-Nov-94, Gazette 05-Jan-95, [1995] 1 AC 456)
  • Cited – ABC and Others v CDE and Others QBD 3-Nov-2009
    The first claimant sought committal of the first defendant for contempt of court, alleging breach of a freezing order, saying that the defendant had created a sham debt and repaid it.
    Held: There had been no genuine loan agreement, and the . .
    (, [2009] EWHC 2718 (QB))
  • Cited – ABC and Others v CDE and Others QBD 3-Nov-2009
    The first claimant sought committal of the first defendant for contempt of court, alleging breach of a freezing order, saying that the defendant had created a sham debt and repaid it.
    Held: There had been no genuine loan agreement, and the . .
    (, [2009] EWHC 2718 (QB))

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.377368