Great Future International Limited and Others v Sealand Housing Corporation and Others: ChD 19 Jan 2004

Committal of defendants was sought for breach of freezing orders in respect of their assets below a certain minimum.
Held: There was an evidential but not legal burden on the alleged contemnor to establish that his assets exceeded the minimum set down. Beyond that the burden of proof was on the applicant.


Lewison J


Times 01-Mar-2004


England and Wales


CitedCanadian Imperial Bank of Canada v Batessa 21-Apr-1993
Where a breach was alleged of a freezing order made as to assets below a certain minimum, the onus of establishing that assets existed fell on the putative contemnor. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.194669