Site icon swarb.co.uk

Fairclough and Sons v The Manchester Ship Canal Co: CA 1897

The court considered the remedies for a contempt of court.
Held: Lord Russell CJ said: ‘We desire to make it clear that in such cases no casual or accidental and unintentional disobedience of an Order would justify either a commitment or sequestration. Where the Court is satisfied that the conduct was not intentional or reckless, but merely casual and accidental and committed under circumstances which negatived any suggestion of contumacy, while it might visit the offending party with costs and might order an inquiry as to damages, he would not take the extreme course of ordering either of commitment or of sequestration.’

Judges:

Lord Russell CJ

Citations:

(1897) 41 SJ 225, [1897] WN 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPhonographic Performance Ltd v Reader ChD 22-Mar-2005
The claimant had in the past obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant broadcasting without their licence musical works belonging to their members at his nightclub. The defendant had obtained a licence, but had not renewed it. The claimants in . .
CitedOffice of Fair Trading v Miller CA 3-Feb-2009
Order must be clear to found contempt charge
The defendant appealed against a finding of contempt of court after being found to have sold defective kitchen equipment in breach of a stop order. The defendant had been previously committed for breach of the same order, and released on his . .
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.272764

Exit mobile version