Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Contempt of Court - From: 1994 To: 1994

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Regina v McLusky (1994) 98 Cr App R 216
1994
CACD

Contempt of Court, Criminal Practice
Any passing of information about jury activities threatened the secrecy of the jury room, and was potentially in contempt.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 8
1 Citers


 
Regina v Patley Bridge Justices ex parte Percy [1994] COD 453
1994


Magistrates, Contempt of Court
Application for judicial review of conviction for contempt of court.
1 Citers


 
Fulham Football Club Ltd v Cabra Estates plc [1994] 1 BCLC 363
1994
CA
Neil LJ
Company, Contempt of Court
Fulham, as lessees of Craven Cottage, agreed with CABRA, a developer, who had applied for planning permission to redevelop the ground, shortly before a public inquiry which had been set up to consider the planning application; and also a proposal by the local authority (which Fulham FC had supported) for the making of a compulsory purchase order of the ground. Fulham were to receive payment from CABRA in return not providing witnesses or written material in support of the CPO. If called upon to do so, they were to write in support of the planning application. Held: Directors of a company may have power make a contract which fetters their discretion in any event. Neil LJ said: "It is trite law that directors are under a duty to act bona fide in the interests of their company. However, it does not follow from that proposition that directors can never make a contract by which they bind themselves to the future exercise of their powers in a particular manner, even though the contract taken as a whole is manifestly for the benefit of the company. Such a rule could well prevent companies from entering into contracts which were commercially beneficial to them."
"The principle which underlies both the law of contempt of court and the rules governing the immunity of witnesses from suit, however, is that, as a matter of public policy, the court will prevent and, if necessary punish, conduct which interferes with the proper administration of justice. Thus, "any contract which has a tendency to affect the due administration of justice is contrary to public policy": see Halsbury's Laws of England. In any individual case therefore the question is: has the act impugned interfered with, or will it interfere with, the due administration of justice? It is not sufficient merely to pose the question: is the effect of the agreement that a party or a witness may be prevented from putting forward a particular contention in court or before a tribunal? It is necessary to take a broad view of the public interest and, where necessary, seek to achieve a balance between countervailing public policy considerations. Thus in the present case there is the public interest in allowing business to be transacted freely and in holding commercial men to their bargains.
There are many circumstances where parties can properly and legally reach agreements as to the future course of legal proceedings. The law favours rather than disapproves of the compromise of a civil action, and the court will intervene to prevent a party pursuing a legal remedy in breach of a valid compromise. . .
The court will consider the facts of each case. But where, as here, a commercial agreement relating to land has been entered into between parties as arm's, length and one party agrees in return for a very substantial payment to support the other party's applications for planning permission we can see no rule of public policy which renders such an agreement illegal or unenforceable. This does not mean of course that a witness could be prevented by agreement from giving evidence on subpoena, because this could involve an interference with the course of justice. But we are satisfied that on the facts of this case the covenantors cannot rely on any rule of public policy which would enable them to ignore the provisions in . . the letter of undertaking and to volunteer to oppose [Cabra's] application. Nor can we find any ground of public policy which could be invoked to prevent the first plaintiffs and the club writing a letter to the Secretary of State and the planning authority in strict accordance with . . the letter of undertaking stating that "the Companies" support the planning application and are in favour of it being granted. We see no objection to the inclusion of a sentence in the letter to the effect that it is written in accordance with the letter of undertaking."
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Official Solicitor v News Group Newspapers [1994] 2 FLR 174
1994
FD
Connell J
Media, Family, Contempt of Court
There had been a conviction of a nurse for multiple murders. The defendant was approached by a third party and published evidence taken from children's proceedings. Held: The defendant was guilty of contempt.
1 Citers


 
Z Bank v DI [1994] 1 Lloyds Rep 656
1994
ChD
Colman J
Contempt of Court, Banking
A company in contempt of court may have acted with a greater or lesser degree of culpability and the court has a discretion to impose punishment commensurate with that culpability, although some penalty is likely to be appropriate unless the contempt has been casual or accidental or unintentional or subsequently purged, but "That, however, does not mean that there are no cases of negligent contempt where a penalty in the form of committal or sequestration would be appropriate. For example, where a contemnor had committed an isolated breach of a Mareva injunction due to the negligence of those responsible for giving appropriate orders to junior staff or perhaps due to having received negligent legal advice and had attempted to purge the contempt by restoring the status quo as far as possible, it might well be quite unnecessary for the protection of the administration of justice for any penalty to be imposed. Where by contrast there has been a very culpable degree of negligence which has resulted in numerous breaches of the Court’s order involving the abstraction of large sums of money, it will often be appropriate to impose not merely a nominal penalty but one which will be recognized as reflecting the serious view taken by the Court of the failure to comply with its orders." The bank being culpable, a sequestration was ordered to support the contempt finding.
1 Citers



 
 HM Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others; HL 4-Feb-1994 - Gazette, 02 March 1994; Independent, 09 February 1994; Times, 04 February 1994; [1994] 2 AC 238; [1994] UKHL 1; [1994] 1 All ER 556; [1994] COD 275; [1994] 2 WLR 277; (1994) 99 Cr App R 131
 
Regina v Tamworth Justices Ex Parte Walsh Times, 03 March 1994; [1994] COD 277
3 Mar 1994
QBD

Contempt of Court
The peremptory committal of a solicitor for an insult was wrong. Alternatives were available.
1 Citers


 
Broadmoor Hospital v Hyde and Another Independent, 04 March 1994; Times, 18 May 1994
4 Mar 1994
QBD

Contempt of Court
A non-disclosure order was not necessary to found an application for contempt where the applicant had not made any personal enquiries as to the existence of such an order.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10


 
 Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim and Others; CA 21-Mar-1994 - Unreported 21 March 1994
 
The Mercantile Group (Europe) AG v Victor Aiyela and Others [1994] QB 366
18 Apr 1994
ComC
Colman J
Contempt of Court
cw Contempt - Contempt of court by individual - arising from breach of order for disclosure of documents and undertakings
RSC Order 45 r 5
1 Citers


 
Attorney General v Independent Television News and Others Times, 12 May 1994
12 May 1994
QBD

Contempt of Court
A complaint of contempt of court was defeated by a deal in the trial which had worked to reduce any risk of prejudice.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 1 2
1 Citers


 
In R B (Minors) (Wardship: Power to Detain) Times, 24 May 1994; [1994] 2 FLR 479
24 May 1994
CA

Children, Contempt of Court
A wardship court may not order the detention of a person after an arrest without a finding first of contempt.
1 Citers


 
Atlantic Capital Corporation v Burney; Atlantic Capital Corporation and Others v Johnson Ind Summary, 26 September 1994; Unreported, 15 September 1994
15 Sep 1994
CA

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
The person in contempt had failed to comply with a series of asset-tracing orders which "depended critically" upon the rightfulness of a default judgment earlier obtained against him. The court did not prevent him challenging the basis of those orders despite being in contempt of them. The court considered the procedure where a contemnor sought to set aside the order he was claimed to be in contempt of.
1 Citers



 
 Director General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2); HL 25-Nov-1994 - Independent, 30 November 1994; Times, 25 November 1994; Gazette, 05 January 1995; [1995] 1 AC 456
 
Associated Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom 24770/94; [1994] ECHR 58
30 Nov 1994
ECHR
Mm A Weizel P
Human Rights, Contempt of Court, Media
The newspaper said that a finding against it of contempt of court for publishing material derived from a jury's deliberations infringed its rights of free speech. Held. The complaint was declared inadmissible. "The Commission agrees with the applicants that the fines imposed in the present case amounted to an interference with the applicants' freedom of expression, and also agrees that the interference was 'prescribed by law'. In connection with the question whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim, the Commission finds, as indeed the applicants accept, that the aim was to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. It would add that the term 'judiciary' comprises the entire machinery of justice, including the proper functioning of the jury system (cf., Euro. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 34, para. 55). It is an important element of that system that jurors should express themselves freely in the jury room without fear of outside disclosure of their views and opinions. To this extent the law may also serve to protect the rights of individual jurors themselves.
. . In connection with the legislation as such [the 1981 Act], the Commission notes that the jury system in the United Kingdom is founded on the premise that jurors will express themselves freely in the jury room in the knowledge that what they say will not be used outside. If a juror thought that what he said could subsequently be made public, it is possible that he would bear in mind the future use to which his words might be put, and not just the case in hand. The unlimited prohibition on disclosure is then seen to be an inevitable protection for jurors and can therefore be regarded as 'necessary' in a democratic society which has decided to retain this particular form of jury trial.",br />The Commission added that it was not called on to assess the compatibility of section 8 with article 10 in circumstances involving a conviction for research into jury methods as such, and stated: "The present case relates rather to revelations of the jury's deliberations in one specific case of considerable public interest, including statements by the jurors concerned about the opinions and attitudes of other members of the jury. The applicants were well aware that the information they published was sensitive, and should have been aware that its disclosure could put other individual jurors in an invidious position.
The Commission finds, in the circumstances of the present case, that the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression did not take the State beyond the margin of appreciation which it enjoyed."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ HUDOC ] - [ Bailii ]
 
MGN Pension Trustees Ltd v Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association Etc Independent, 15 December 1994; Times, 21 December 1994; [1995] 2 All ER 355
15 Dec 1994
ChD

Contempt of Court
There should be no refusal to allow reporting of civil proceedings where criminal proceedings were not likely to be prejudiced. The critical question in relation to section 4(2) is whether there is a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice which could be avoided by the making of a postponing order. The court enumerated the questions to be asked on whether reporting of proceedings to be delayed for prejudice.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)
1 Citers



 
 Regina v Young (Stephen); CACD 30-Dec-1994 - Gazette, 08 February 1995; Times, 30 December 1994; Ind Summary, 16 January 1995; (1995) 2 Cr App R 379; [1995] QB 324; [1995] 2 WLR 430
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.