Mann J considered the sentencing options for a contempt of court in the form of an attempt to undermine a search and seizure order. He said: ‘Freezing orders and search and seizure orders are orders which are not uncommon these days. Where disclosure obligations are provided in orders, they are provided for a good reason. They are provided so that orders can be policed and/or so the claimants can be put in possession of information which they need. Where search and seizure orders are made, they are made because the interests of the claimant and of justice require it. The court can and should expect these orders to be obeyed without question by those upon whom they are served, and those who do not comply with those orders can expect little mercy from the court and can expect serious sanctions to be imposed upon them if they do not. The system simply will not work if people think that they can ignore court orders and destroy evidence, or remove materials from the scene to which claimants are entitled. Those who do so can expect terms of imprisonment.’
Judges:
Mann J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 3090 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Aspect 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: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.408556