Gulf Azov Shipping Company v Idisi: CA 2001

The defendant was found to have committed a serious breach of a freezing injunction.
Held: A committal order is appropriate where there is serious contumacious flouting of orders of the court. The sentence imposed was three months suspended on condition that the contempt was purged.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 21

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoGulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd and Another v Idisi and others CA 25-Jan-2001
An order was made for the defendant to put up security for costs in order to pursue an appeal. The order had been for the security to be in cash. Application was now made for the security to be by way of a guarantee or bond.
Held: The proposed . .
See AlsoGulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd and Another v Chief Humphrey Irikefe Idisi and others CA 14-Feb-2001
The court granted permission to appeal. . .
See AlsoGulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd and others v Idisi and others CA 9-Mar-2001
Application for permission to appeal against assessment of damages. Refused. . .
See AlsoGulf Azov Shipping Co Ltd and others v Chief Humphrey Irikefe Idisi and others CA 15-Mar-2004
Appeal against award of costs against person who was not party to the original proceedings. . .
CitedCrystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others ChD 13-Nov-2006
The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding . .
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.408559