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: 2002 To: 2002

This page lists 28 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Attorney General v Mirror Group Newspapers Limited (2002) EWHC 907
2002


Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing
Two Leeds United footballers were on trial for assaulting an Asian student. The newspaper chose to publish an interview with the victim's father. Held: The article was a deliberate contempt. a fine of £75,000 was imposed in respect of articles in the Sunday Mirror which were published in breach of the strict liability rule. The gravity of the contempt was at the top end of the range of strict liability contempts, but there were mitigating factors, in particular the company's good record and its acceptance of the fact that it had erred.
1 Citers


 
The Government of Sierra Leone v Davenport and others [2002] EWCA Civ 230
2002
CA
Lasw LJ
Contempt of Court
An application was made to commit a defendant for contempt of court in failing to comply with parts of a court order. Held: He was found to have been in contempt but the failure had been cured and no penalty beyond costs was imposed on him.
1 Citers


 
Bempoa, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2002] EWHC 153 (Admin)
14 Feb 2002
Admn
Munby J
Housing, Contempt of Court, Local Government
Gilliatt The court issued a very public and highly deserved rebuke of LB Southwark's 'outrageous' breach of an undertaking to a court not to enforce a possession order. The case is interesting in its detail of the systematic failures of the local authority. The court also gave the appellant leave to apply for damages, whilst expressing some doubts about the personal right to damages of the victim of a contemptuous action.
[ Bailii ]
 
Heathcote v Crackles [2002] EWCA Civ 222
19 Feb 2002
CA

Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
H (A Healthcare Worker) v Associated Newspapers Limited Times, 19 March 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 195
27 Feb 2002
CA
Lord Phillips MR, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Carnwath
Health, Information, Human Rights, Media, Civil Procedure Rules, Contempt of Court
The applicant had been a health care worker, but was no longer working. He had come to be HIV positive, and an order was sought protecting his identity from disclosure in the press. He had evidence that the NHS guidelines on notification of patients of having been treated. He declined to provide details of his private patients for notification. He had obtained an order under the rules to protect his identity within the proceedings. Held: The order against the newspaper would better have been obtained as part of the first action, but the two could be consolidated. The order had allowed the authority to be named, but restricted the newspaper publishing anything which might lead directly or indirectly to his identification. Both parties challenged parts of the order. The order preventing the naming of the Health Authority was intended only to protect the identity of the worker, and was properly made. There was a balancing exercise to be had, and also there was a need to respect the privacy of those who had been treated by H. The Health authority also had interests which it had a duty to protect. The court had power to protect its identity to avoid a situation which would seriously interfere with its statutory duties. The consequence of identifying the authority would include also the inevitable discovery of the identity of H. N should not be identified. H must hand over such records of his private patients as was necessary to allow a look-back exercise, and identify any who might have been at risk.
Data Protection Act 1988 - Civil Procedure Rules 39.2.(2) - Human Rights Act 1998 Sch1 Art 10
1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Financial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA Times, 21 March 2002; Gazette, 18 April 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 274; [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 229; [2002] EMLR 446
8 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Contempt of Court, Media, Human Rights
The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant. Held: The Ashworth Hospital case seemed to have widened the meaning of 'necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime' which was the test under section 10 for the disclosure against a newspaper. The human rights of freedom of the press also must be considered. The respondents sought to make a claim for breach of confidence, and accordingly the tests under section 10 was satisfied. The source's evidently maleficent purpose was critical.
Sedley LJ acknowledged the need to read section 10 of the 1981 Act compatibly with the Convention: "The purpose of s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is to limit to the necessary minimum any requirement upon journalists to reveal their sources. It has now to be read and applied by our courts, so far as possible, compatibly with the Convention rights: Human Rights Act 1998, s.3(1). For reasons touched on earlier in this judgment, there should be no difficulty about this; but that is not to say that the Convention can simply be treated as background, for it and its jurisprudence may both amplify and modify the hitherto accepted meaning and effect of s.10. For present purposes the Convention right which is in play is the qualified right spelt out in art. 10."
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10 - European Convention on Human Rights 10
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Berry Trade Ltd and Another v Moussavi and Others Times, 10 April 2002; Gazette, 23 May 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 477; [2002] BPIR 881
21 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Mummery and Lady Justice Arden
Legal Aid, Contempt of Court, Human Rights
The respondent had, it was alleged, had breached worldwide asset freezing orders, and was liable to be committed to prison. Legal Aid was refused by the Legal Services Commission. After several adjournments, the other party offered to pay for solicitor and counsel of his choice. He refused. Held: An application could not proceed without proper opportunity for the contemnor to obtain representation of his choice. Contempt proceedings are criminal proceedings for the purposes of Human Rights law. One more opportunity should be given for him to obtain legal aid, and the court would then look again at alternatives.
European Convention on Human Rights
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Robert Arnold Tuohy and Others v Gary Bell [2002] EWCA Civ 423; [2002] 1 WLR 2703; [2002] 3 All ER 975; [2003] BPIR 749
27 Mar 2002
CA
Lord Justice Kennedy, Neuberger J
Contempt of Court
The appellant challenged an order for his committal for contempt.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Wilkinson, Re [2002] EWCA Civ 527
15 Apr 2002
CA

Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court Act 1981 - Children Act 1989 - Family Law Act 1986
[ Bailii ]
 
Allason and Another v Random House (UK) Ltd (No.2) [2002] EWHC 1030 (Ch)
19 Apr 2002
ChD
Neuberger J
Contempt of Court
Application was made by the successful defendant for the committal of the claimant for breach of court orders consequent on the loss. Held: Mr Allason was in contempt, but should be given a further short opportunity to comply.
Neuberger J said: "Freezing orders and disclosure orders, such as that made by Lloyd J, are a serious invasion of an individual's privacy and freedom, and in some cases those against whom they are made have considerable cause for complaint and concern. They are, however, orders of the court and are justified where a person is, or appears to be, seeking to avoid his liabilities. When the court makes such orders, it is very important that they are complied with and complied with promptly. If it transpires that such an order should never have been made or was unfairly made, then a defendant should be entitled to be fully compensated for any damage suffered, and any claimant who wrongly obtains such an order does so very much at his peril. That does not alter the fact that such orders are only granted when they appear to be justified, and, when they are granted, they should most certainly be complied with and taken seriously. I regard Mr Allason's delay in complying with the order, with no remotely justifiable excuse, as a quite unacceptable and serious contempt."
[ Bailii ]
 
Bibby Factors (Sussex) Ltd v Rehman and others [2002] EWCA Civ 760
13 May 2002
CA

Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and Others Times, 10 July 2002; Gazette, 30 August 2002
26 Jun 2002
CA
Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Sedley
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
A world wide asset freezing order had been made. The defendants sought that it be set aside. Pending the hearing of their application, they sought also delay of their obligation to co-operate in providing full details of their finances. Held: The asset freezing order remained in place. To be effective the information was needed from the defendant. Since they accepted that the order must continue, it followed that the means enquiry must also take place. Where an appeal is grounded on an alleged lack of jurisdiction to make the (disobeyed) order at all, it was generally right to hear the contemnor: "we bear in mind that the defendants’ appeals are essentially defensive in nature. Their stance in this jurisdiction has been one of resistance to a series of restrictive and intrusive orders sought by the claimant in foreign proceedings, rather than a voluntary invocation of the powers of the English court for their own benefit. This seems to us to bear on the proportionality of precluding them, as parties in contempt, from what would otherwise be their right of appeal against the freezing orders to which the orders for cross-examination were ancillary. In all the circumstances, we take the view that the defendants should be heard upon, and their arguments treated as addressed to, all of their appeals and applications now before us."
1 Citers



 
 Ashworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited; HL 27-Jun-2002 - Times, 01 July 2002; Gazette, 01 August 2002; [2002] UKHL 29; [2002] 1 WLR 2033; 12 BHRC 443; [2003] FSR 17; [2002] CPLR 712; [2002] UKHRR 1263; [2002] EMLR 36; (2002) 67 BMLR 175; [2002] HRLR 41; [2002] 4 All ER 193
 
Cooke v Smart [2002] EWCA Civ 1050
28 Jun 2002
CA

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Derrick Burgess, Chris Furbert, Sinclair Smith and Orin Simmons v Stevedoring Services Limited [2002] UKPC 39
15 Jul 2002
PC

Contempt of Court
PC (Bermuda) An injunction had been granted requiring the trade union to cease industrial action. The action was settled, but the injunction was not released. Later, there were furthe rdisputes, and committal was sought. Held: The later action taken was in the nature of an industrial dispute of the sort restrained. The trade union, by the decisions of its officials and meetings prescribed by the rules, had power to decide not to comply with its collective obligations. But it had no power on behalf of its members to decide that they would not comply with their individual obligations. That was a matter for them. Although the action was a breach, the way it had been enforced without proper notice, and after such a delay was an abuse of process, and the injunction should be discharged.
1 Cites

[ PC ] - [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] - [ PC ]
 
London Borough of Barnet v Hurst Times, 12 August 2002; Gazette, 19 September 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1009; [2002] 4 All ER 457; [2002] CP Rep 74; [2003] 1 WLR 722; [2003] HLR 244
17 Jul 2002
CA
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Brook and Lord Justice Dyson
Civil Procedure Rules, Contempt of Court
The applicant had been sentenced to nine months imprisonment for having broken his undertaking to the Court. He appealed against that sentence. The other party also sought to appeal other parts of the order. Held: An appeal limited to the sentencing part of a committal for contempt did not require leave to appeal, being as of right under the section, but an appeal against any other part did require leave, but could be heard either by a circuit judge in the County Court, or made direct to the Court of Appeal. Second Appeals would be the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure Rules 52.13 - Administration of Justice Act 1960 13
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Medina Housing Association Ltd v Connolly [2002] EWCA Civ 1263
26 Jul 2002
CA

Criminal Sentencing, Contempt of Court

Housing Act 1996 153
[ Bailii ]

 
 In re M (a Child) (Disclosure: Children and Family Reporter); CA 31-Jul-2002 - Times, 23 August 2002; Gazette, 10 October 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 1199; [2003] Fam 26
 
Benson v Richards [2002] EWCA Civ 1276
5 Sep 2002
CA

Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
Jockey Club v Buffham [2003] QB 462; Times, 04 October 2002; Gazette, 17 October 2002; [2002] EWHC 1866 (QB)
13 Sep 2002
QBD
Gray J
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court, Media, Intellectual Property
A court had issued a final order with an injunction against the respondent against revealing matters becoming known to him during his employment by the claimant. The BBC sought a variation to allow it to broadcast material based upon that documents held by the defendant. Held: A final order was not binding against third parties. Once the proceedings had concluded, and a final order made, those proceedings could not be prejudiced, and the law of contempt no longer applied. The BBC was not bound by the injunction.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Horgan v Horgan [2002] EWCA Civ 1371
18 Sep 2002
CA

Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing

[ Bailii ]
 
Benson v Richards [2002] EWCA Civ 1410
2 Oct 2002
CA

Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
Anthony Francis Riou Benson v Samantha Jane Richards In Person [2002] EWCA Civ 1402
11 Oct 2002
CA
The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Carnwath <
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
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 appeal against the order. Held: The underlying finding, that the land at issue was not hers was no longer itself in issue, and continued attempts by the respondent to re-open arguments long settled were pointless. The number of court orders, and defects in some of them had caused confusion, but there was no fundamental fault. Appeal refused.
The court had a discretion to dispense with personal service of a document containing a penal notice, but in deciding whether to exercise that discretion, the court would need to be satisfied that the purposes of the requirements had been achieved.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Robinson v Clarke [2002] EWCA Civ 1515
18 Oct 2002
CA

Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]

 
 Anglo-Eastern Trust Ltd and Another v Kermanshahchi; ChD 21-Oct-2002 - Times, 08 November 2002; Gazette, 21 November 2002
 
Dubarry v Dubarry [2002] EWCA Civ 1808
14 Nov 2002
CA

Family, Contempt of Court

Family Law Act 1996 Part 4
[ Bailii ]
 
London Borough of Newham v Jones [2002] EWCA Civ 1779
19 Nov 2002
CA

Contempt of Court

[ Bailii ]
 
Her Majesty's Attorney General v Punch Limited and another [2003] 1 All ER 289; [2003] HRLR 14; [2003] EMLR 7; Times, 13 December 2002; [2002] UKHL 50; [2002] UKHL 43; [2003] 2 WLR 49; [2003] 1 AC 1046
12 Dec 2002
HL
Lord Hope of Craighead
Contempt of Court, Media
A former MI5 agent, Mr Shayler, was to be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, and an injunction against publication was granted. The respondent published further works by Mr Shayler, and now appealed a finding that it had acted in contempt of court. Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of the interlocutory injunction was not merely to protect secret information, but was more to hold the position until a court had properly decided that issue. Accordingly a publication contrary to the injunction interfered with the administration of justice and was a contempt. It pre-empted the decision which a court might later make. It remained a contempt even if the information did not threaten security.
Lord Hope of Craighead spoke of the liability of a third party for contempt: "it has . . to be shown there was an intention on his part to interfere with or impede the administration of justice. This is an essential ingredient, and it has to be established to the criminal standard of proof."
Lord Nicholls said: "Contempt of court is the established, if unfortunate, name given to the species of wrongful conduct which consists of interference with the administration of justice. It is an essential adjunct of the rule of law.
Interference with the administration of justice can take many forms. In civil proceedings one obvious form is a wilful failure by a party to the proceedings to comply with a court order made against him. By such a breach a party may frustrate, to greater or lesser extent, the purpose the court sought to achieve in making the order against him . .
The form of contempt asserted by the Attorney General in the present case is different, although closely related. Sometimes the purpose a court seeks to achieve in making an order against a party to proceedings may be deliberately impeded or prejudiced by the conduct of a third party. This may take more than one form. The third party may be assisting, that is, aiding and abetting, a breach of the order by the person against whom the order was made. Then he is an accessory to the breach of the order . .
Aiding and abetting a breach of the order by the person specifically restrained by the order is not always an essential ingredient of 'third party' contempt. The purpose of a court in making an order may be deliberately frustrated by a third party even though he is acting independently of the party against whom the order was made. An interlocutory order for the non-disclosure of information is the paradigm example of the type of order where this principle is in point. The Spycatcher litigation is the best known recent instance of this. It is a contempt of court by a third party, with the intention of impeding or prejudicing the administration of justice by the court in an action between two other parties, himself to do the acts which the injunction restrains the defendant in that action from committing if the acts done have some significant and adverse affect on the administration of justice in that action: see Lord Brandon of Oakbrook in Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd . . and, for the latter part, Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing plc [1997] 1 WLR 927, 936. Lord Phillips MR neatly identified the rationale of this form of contempt, at [2001] QB 1028, 1055, paragraph 87: "The contempt is committed not because the third party is in breach of the order - the order does not bind the third party. The contempt is committed because the purpose of the judge in making the order is intentionally frustrated with the consequence that the conduct of the trial is disrupted."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.