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: 2003 To: 2003
This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Re K (Contact: Committal Order) [2003] 1 FLR 277
2003
Contempt of Court
Proceedings for committal are a criminal charge for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention.
European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Citers
Stafford Borough Council v Haynes and others [2003] EWCA Civ 159
23 Jan 2003
CA
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Marshall Properties Ltd v R H Tomlinssons (Trowbridge) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1314
24 Jan 2003
CA
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Ltd, Hola Sa, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Ltd, Ramey; ChD 27-Jan-2003 - Times, 31 January 2003; [2003] EWHC 55 (Ch); Gazette, 20 March 2003; [2003] 1 All ER 1087; [2003] EMLR 29
The Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others Times, 11 February 2003; [2003] EWHC 91 (Ch); Times, 20 March 2003
30 Jan 2003
ChD
The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Contempt of Court, Evidence
The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a right not to incriminate himself, and gave no evidence. He now claimed to have been acting under duress. Held: Duress required to be shown immediate threats of violence, which remained operative, to which a reasonable person would have taken heed, and an inability to escape the threat. The defendant had failed to establish duress. These proceedings were civil and it was not for the claimant to establish the absence of duress. Evidence of duress in civil contempt proceedings goes merely as a mitigation, and is not a defence. This is not incompatible with the defendants' human rights. The defendant had not purged his contempt even now, and a sentence of immediate imprisonment of four months was appropriate.
1 Cites
Wilkinson v S and Lord Chancellor's Department Times, 07 February 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 95; [2003] 1 WLR 1254
4 Feb 2003
CA
Woolf LCJ, Hale, Latham LJJ
Contempt of Court, Human Rights, Litigation Practice
The appellant challenged his imprisonment for contempt of court. At and after a family court hearing he had verbally and physically assaulted other parties. He had been detained overnight, then sentenced to six months imprisonment. Held: Where a court looked to deal summarily with a contempt, and the defendant had been locked up, but the case could not be dealt with on that day, the case should be mentioned again to allow consideration of bail. The court had a power hold a defendant overnight, but for no longer than was necessary to arrange a summary trial, and in fairness to th defendant. Here, the summary procedure was appropriate because of the seriousness of the contempt. The judge could deal with the case himself and remain an impartial tribunal, since the procedure was to protect the court not the judge. Where there was any delay, reference to another judge should be considered. A suspended committal order was a committal order at least to the extent that leave to appeal is not required.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Evans v Evans [2003] EWCA Civ 593
24 Mar 2003
CA
Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing
[ Bailii ]
In re G (a Child) (Contempt: Committal); CA 10-Apr-2003 - Times, 05 May 2003; Gazette, 19 June 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 489; [2003] 2 FLR 58
Regina v Yusuf Times, 12 May 2003
6 May 2003
CACD
Rose LJ, Grigson Beatson JJ
Criminal Sentencing, Contempt of Court
It is essential that witnesses who had been called to attend court should do so. The public have a duty to co-operate with the courts. The appellant was called to be a witness in a murder trial. A witness summons had been served, but he did not attend. Held: He had claimed to be afraid, but had retracted parts of his statement. The judge in this case had dealt with the appellant fairly, and there was no bias. The sentence of the maximim of three months' imprisonment for contempt was appropriate given the deliberate act and the consequences.
Regina v Moore Times, 15 May 2003; Gazette, 03 July 2003
12 May 2003
CACD
Rose LJ, Grigson, Beatson JJ
Human Rights, Contempt of Court, Costs
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court, but succeeded on appeal. Costs had been ordered in his favour, but the matter had been referred back to the court to consider the extent of its powers on such an occasion. Held: The making of an award of costs from central funds might be available in exceptional circumstances. One such circumstance could be where the public were not party to the proceedings. Here, it was argued that he would be denied justice unless the court construed its own powers widely enough, and the human rights law required him to have legal assistance of his own choosing. Minelli could not be read so far. In the light of Holden, the court could not read section 13 so widely, and a costs order could not be made.
Administration of Justice Act 1960 13(3) - European Convention on Human Rights 6
1 Cites
Attorney General v Scotcher [2003] EWHC 1380 (Admin)
16 May 2003
Admn
Scott Baker LJ and Pitchford J
Contempt of Court
The defendant had acted as a juror. After the trial he wrote to the mother of the defendant and revealed aspects of the jury's deliberations with which he felt unhappy. Held: The action was a contempt of court.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan and others (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 752; Times, 19 June 2003; Gazette, 28 August 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 113
12 Jun 2003
CA
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Potter And Lord Justice Tuckey
Jurisdiction, Contempt of Court
World-wide freezing orders had been made under the 1982 Act. The defendants were members of a Turkish family with substantial business interests in the telecommunications industry. In breach of orders made in the US some defendants had sought to hide their assets. They had failed to respond as required to orders to disclose their assest, and failed to attend for cross examination. Anti-suit orders had been made in Turkey. The question now arose as to whether they should be heard on appeal if they remained in contempt. Held: The court will hear a person in contempt when his application challenges the basis of the order of which he is in contempt. The original orders here bordered on the creative, and the challenge should be allowed. As to the validity of the orders, there was no fraud of the severity of Duvalier, and no question of comity arose. The judge's exercise of his discretion was to be revisited. Appeals allowed in part.
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 25 - Supreme Court Act 1981 37(1)
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Amberley Construction Ltd v Beamish [2003] EWCA Civ 1267
31 Jul 2003
CA
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Sevketoglu v Sevketoglu Times, 27 November 2003
21 Aug 2003
CA
Ward, Hale LJJ
Contempt of Court
The appellant had broken two court orders, and appealed a sentence of two months imprisonment. He had been held on remand for 28 days before the court hearing. Held: The judge should have given allowance for the time spent in custody already. In contempt cases such time would not be deducted automatically, and therefore the sentence itself should be adjusted.
Family Law Act 1996
1 Cites
Turnbull v Middlesbrough Borough Council; CA 28-Aug-2003 - Times, 15 September 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1327; Gazette, 16 October 2003
Scott and Another v Easthorpe and Another [2003] EWCA Civ 1289
10 Sep 2003
CA
Contempt of Court, Criminal Sentencing
County Courts Act 1984
[ Bailii ]
Keys, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 2526 (Admin)
17 Oct 2003
Admn
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]
Zakharov and Others v White and Others Times, 13 November 2003
28 Oct 2003
ChD
Roderick Evans J
Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
The defendant challenged a bench warrant issued out of the Chancery Division for his arrest. He said the lack of any written procedure made it non-compliant with his human rights, and a warrant could not be issued without a finding of contempt. Held: The rules did not make any provision, but nonetheless the court had an inherent jurisdiction to secure compliance with it's orders. The presence of rule not mentioning such a power did not negate its existence. That a bench warrant was issued in a criminal case in H did not either establish that a finding of contempt was first required in this context.
1 Cites
Sherwin v Sherwin [2003] EWCA Civ 1726
12 Nov 2003
CA
Contempt of Court, Family
[ Bailii ]
Mahajan v Waldman and others [2003] EWCA Civ 1899
10 Dec 2003
CA
Contempt of Court
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Lomas v Parle [2003] EWCA Civ 1804; Times, 13 January 2004; [2004] 1 All ER 1173; [2004] 1 FLR 812
18 Dec 2003
CA
The President Of The Family Division Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Mance
Contempt of Court, Family, Criminal Sentencing
The respondent had been sentenced to two months imprisonment for breaches of orders under the Act. The wife appealed, seeking to increase the sentence. The maximum sentence was two years. Held: The court had to consider such cases in the light of any parallel criminal or civil proceedings under the 1997 Act. "This was a case with an appalling history of intimidation and abuse. At every turn the husband had flouted the orders of the court and seized any leniency as little more than an opportunity to resume his campaign against the wife. The two breaches in respect of which he was sentenced were both individually extremely sinister in their presentation and implication. We are of the opinion that a sentence of less than ten months' imprisonment would have been unduly lenient. We only fixed a lesser sentence to reflect the element of double jeopardy. Accordingly the sentence which we passed on 30 October was a sentence of eight months' imprisonment concurrent on each of the admitted breaches. " and "the first court to sentence must not anticipate or allow for a likely future sentence. It is for the second court to sentence to reflect the prior sentence in its judgment in order to ensure that the defendant is not twice punished for the same act. It is essential that the second court should be fully informed of the factors and circumstances reflected in the first sentence."
Family Law Act 1996 42 - Contempt of Court Act 1981 14 - Protection from Harrassment Act 1997
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Ford v Ford [2003] EWCA Civ 1934
19 Dec 2003
CA
Contempt of Court
[ Bailii ]