The claimants sought the committal of the fourth defendant for contempt having broken his undertaking to the court to provide details of his means.
Held: The terms of the undertaking were not ambiguous and could not be read in the way suggested by the defendant. The undertaking had itself been given to support the defendant’s application to set aside a committal and the defendant knew its significance. The defendant was in breach, though his possible misunderstanding remained factor to be taken into account. At the same time he had disposed of papers in breach of his undertaking. He was in contempt and the court invited representations as to the proper form of penalty.
(Order discharged on appeal)
Judges:
Teare J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 1445 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Marketmaker Beijing Co Ltd and others v CMC Group Plc and others QBD 8-Oct-2004
Interim injunctions had been obtained to prevent the defendants carrying out certain banking transactions.
Held: The remedy sought and the claim was extravagant and unlikely to succeed. The injunctions should be discharged. It was not at all . .
See Also – Marketmaker Technology Ltd and others v CMC Group Plc and others QBD 12-Jun-2008
(Order discharged on appeal) . .
Cited – Jobserve v Skillsite ChD 2004
Whilst the general principles of contractual construction applied to the construction of undertakings any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person giving the undertaking. . .
Cited – B v B (Matrimonial Proceedings: Discovery) CA 1978
The wife applied for ancillary relief, and sought disclosure from a third party.
Held: Whilst a party must disclose all documents in his possession, custody or power the court has a discretion whether to order inspection. ‘Custody’ in RSC Ord . .
Cited – Regina v Barnet Magistrates Court ex parte Cantor Admn 28-Nov-1997
A court assessing the ability of a defendant to pay a fine may not take into account the defendant’s possible entitlement under a discretionary trust. Such an approach was unlawful. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.347163