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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Practice Direction (Arresting Officer: Attendance) Times, 19 January 2000; Gazette, 03 February 2000
19 Jan 2000
FD
Family, Contempt of Court
The direction deals with the circumstances in which the officer who makes an arrest in family proceedings for the breach of a non-molestation or similar order should be asked to attend court personally on the hearing regarding that breach. Unless the circumstances of the arrest itself appeared to be an issue, or unless the officer could give evidence as a witness to the circumstances leading up to the arrest, the officer need not normally be called.
Family Law Act 1996 47(7)
Newman (t/a Mantella Publishing) v Modern Bookbinders Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 2
20 Jan 2000
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Robert Walker And Lord Justice Sedley
Contempt of Court
The contemnor had taken back goods from the bailiff and was held in contempt of court.
County Courts Act 1984 92
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Jolly v Hull and Others, Jolly v Jolly Times, 10 March 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 4
21 Jan 2000
CA
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
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 should be discouraged.
County Court Rules 1981 Order 29 Rule 1(3)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Director of Public Prosecutions v Scarlett; CACD 7-Feb-2000 - Times, 07 February 2000
British Telecommunications Plc v Nextcall Telecom Plc
29 Feb 2000
ChD
Justice Jacob
Contempt of Court
The defendant company employed salesmen who sought to persuade the claimant's customers to move to them. Sales staff misled customers as to the relationship between the parties. The defendant gave an unqualified undertaking to the claimant not to repeat such actions. They were repeated, and BT sued. The defendants resisted giving an undertaking without some qualification which would recognise that they could not have full control over their staff. The court held that it was for management to implement appropriate systems to control such behaviour, and the order sought created no new obligation beyond that already given by the unqualified undertaking.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Manchester City Council v Mclaughlin and Another Times, 05 April 2000
5 Apr 2000
CA
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
Proceedings were taken to commit a litigant for failure to obey a mandatory injunction for the demolition of property erected in breach of planning legislation. A mistake had been made as to the date of the order on which notice of motion was based. The notice had been corrected. It was held that the motion and committal remained valid. The meaning of the order had not been altered, and was quite clear. The original date was actually the date from which the order had in any event begun.
Samantha Griffin v Lawrence David Griffin Times, 28 April 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 119
7 Apr 2000
CA
Family, Contempt of Court
It was not wrong to make an order suspending commitment for contempt of court provided he complied with another order which had been made without any limit of time. The power to commit remains a common law power with statutory restrictions. An order can be valid and within the judge's discretion even if it is one which should not normally be made.
[ Bailii ]
John and Others v Express Newspapers and Others; CA 26-Apr-2000 - Gazette, 25 May 2000; Times, 26 April 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 135; [2000] 1 WLR 1931
Parker and Another (T/A NBC Services) v Rasalingham (T/A Micro Tec) and Others Times, 25 July 2000; Gazette, 03 August 2000
25 Jul 2000
ChD
Contempt of Court
A party was in breach of an injunction against its use of certain materials within a course it offered. It claimed in defence and mitigation that before doing so, it had taken legal advice that the acts would not be so in breach. The court did not accept that as mitigation. The advice was not recorded at any point and had been given without having full knowledge of the circumstances. Where the order had been negotiated and was by consent. An award of damages was available in respect of infringements of such an order.
British Broadcasting Corporation v Kelly Times, 09 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2001] 1 All ER 323; [2001] Fam 59; [2001] 1 FLR 197
9 Aug 2000
FD
Munby J
Children, Media, Contempt of Court
The interview for television of a child ward of court who had gone to live with members of a religious sect was not necessarily a contempt of court. There are three groups of ways in which a ward's interests can be protected. First where the wardship would lead to no special action, and the ward would take action himself, where the jurisdiction was exercisable, but after a balancing exercise in which the child's interests were not paramount, and where a major decision was to be made in which case the jurisdiction was exercisable. Provided the media kept within such rules as did apply, they should not need to apply to the court, and nor would they be in contempt. "in relation to the media the exercise of the court's inherent parens patriae or wardship jurisdiction is divided into three parts: the first part, in which the jurisdiction is not exercisable at all and the child is left to whatever remedies against the media the law would give an adult in comparable circumstances; a second part in which the jurisdiction is exercisable, but in circumstances where, because the court is exercising only its "protective" jurisdiction, the child's interests are not paramount and where a so-called balancing exercise has to be performed; and the third part, in which, because the court is exercising its "custodial" jurisdiction, the child's interests are paramount. Well known examples of cases falling into the first category, where no injunction can be granted, are In re X (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1975] Fam 47; R v Central Television plc [1994] Fam 192 and M v British Broadcasting Corpn [1997] 1 FLR 51."
1 Citers
Hale v Tanner; CA 22-Aug-2000 - Times, 22 August 2000; [2002] FLR 879; [2000] 1 WLR 2377
Scarsbrook or Galbraith v Her Majesty's Advocate [2000] ScotHC 86; 2001 SLT 465
7 Sep 2000
HCJ
Lord Justice General
Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court
The purpose of orders under the section is to deal with reports of proceedings which are fair and accurate, but which should nonetheless be postponed, not with other material the publication of which might constitute a contempt of Court.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Gulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd v Idisi [2000] EWHC 201 (Comm)
22 Nov 2000
ComC
Moore-Bick J
Contempt of Court
Application to commit defendant to prison for contempt of court.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Calum I MacLeod Times, 20 December 2000
29 Nov 2000
CACD
Human Rights, Criminal Practice, Contempt of Court, Crime
The defendant had approached a prosecution witness after she had completed her evidence, but before she left, and challenged her on the basis that she had been lying. On the following day the judge considered whether his behaviour was a contempt of court, and having found it proved, and sentenced him. In this case, and the judge was not himself a witness to what had happened, and it was appropriate for him to act as an independent tribunal, and it was also necessary to act quickly and decisively. The Article 6 right to a fair trial did not add, in these circumstances, to the requirements which already applied to an English courts. The judge should, however, have requested prosecuting counsel to lead the witness through her evidence.
Regina v Selby Justices, ex parte Daltry Gazette, 07 December 2000; Times, 01 December 2000
1 Dec 2000
QBD
Legal Aid, Contempt of Court
If a court laid a charge of contempt of court, legal aid should normally be granted to the defendant. It was wrong, first to hear representations which led to the charge of contempt being withdrawn, and then to decide that legal aid should not be granted because it was no longer necessary. The effect of this practice would be that legal aid would only be available for sentence for contempt. Contempt is a potentially serious matter and a defendant will generally require representation.
Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd; CA 18-Dec-2000 - Times, 10 January 2001; Gazette, 08 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 334; [2001] 1 WLR 515; [2001] 1 All ER 991
