The parties disputed ownership of a customer database. An interim order had been made prohibiting the defendants’ from its use pending trial. A mandatory order had been made for the disclosure of a list of contacts made, and the claimant complained in contempt as to non-compliabe with the order. The defendant said that the order with penal notice attached had not been served personally as required. The claimant asked the court to dispense with service on the basis that the purpose of the rules was satisfied since it was clear that the defendants knew the content nature and purport of the order.
Held: It was ‘just to dispense with personal service in the present case for the following reasons. The Defendants were represented by solicitors and counsel. The applications for the Orders were made on notice. The Defendants did not oppose the making of the Orders. They were clearly aware of the terms of the Orders. Both Orders bore clear penal notices on the first page spelling out the consequences of disobedience. John Roberjot could not have failed to read and understand those penal notices if he had read the Orders at all.’
Contempts having been found, the court adjourned for further submissions.
Arnold J
[2011] EWHC 121 (Ch)
Bailii
RSC Order 45 Rule 7
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Davy International Ltd and others v Tazzyman and others and Davy International Ltd and others v Durnig and others CA 1-May-1997
. .
Cited – Jolly v Hull and Others, Jolly v Jolly CA 21-Jan-2000
The requirement that a penal notice must have been endorsed upon an order before an application is made to commit the respondent for contempt, was not absolute. In exceptional and clear cases only, as here, such an order could be made, but this . .
Cited – Anthony Francis Riou Benson v Samantha Jane Richards In Person CA 11-Oct-2002
The defendant had been ordered to remove a fence she had placed on land in breach of a court order. She had served a term of imprisonment for contempt, as had her mother who had encouraged her in the flouting of the court order. She now sought to . .
Cited – Tuohy and Others v Bell CA 27-Mar-2002
The appellant challenged an order for his committal for contempt. . .
Cited – Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd ChD 1-Nov-1999
The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere . .
Cited – HM Attorney General v Smith Admn 16-Jan-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.428676