Midland Marts v Hobday: ChD 1989

The court considered a claim for costs on an application for committal of the defendant for infringement.
Held: Vinelott J said: ‘I can see no reason in principle why the Court, if satisfied that the facts proved at the hearing of a motion to commit constitute both a breach of the undertaking to the Court and a breach of contract and also that there is no tenable ground of defence to an action for damages for breach of contract, should not direct an enquiry into damages or in a sufficiently clear case make a summary award of damages’.
Vinelott J
[1989] 1 WLR 1143
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPhonographic Performance Ltd v Reader ChD 22-Mar-2005
The claimant had in the past obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant broadcasting without their licence musical works belonging to their members at his nightclub. The defendant had obtained a licence, but had not renewed it. The claimants in . .
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov SC 21-Mar-2018
A had been chairman of the claimant bank. After removal, A fled to the UK, obtaining asylum. The bank then claimed embezzlement, and was sentenced for contempt after failing to disclose assets when ordered, but fled the UK. The Appellant, K, was A’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 March 2021; Ref: scu.272763