The court was asked as to an alleged breach of an undertaking given by the defendant not to advertise or offer for sale any products as ‘Redwing’ products so as to be liable to lead to the belief that they were the plaintiff’s.
Held: The court will be reluctant to enforce a loosely worded injunction by process of contempt if it clearly cannot be established that its terms have been infringed. There was no breach of the undertaking unless the manner of the advertising or offer were such as to lead to such a belief.
Jenkins J said: ‘a defendant cannot be committed for contempt on the ground that upon one of two possible constructions of an undertaking being given he has broken his undertaking. For the purposes of relief of this character I think the undertaking must be clear and the breach must be clear beyond all question.’
Judges:
Jenkins J
Citations:
[1947] 64 RPC 67
Cited by:
Cited – X and Y v Persons Unknown QBD 8-Nov-2006
The claimants sought an injunction against unknown persons who were said to have divulged confidential matters to newspapers. The order had been served on newspapers who now complained that the order was too uncertain to allow them to know how to . .
Cited – Commission for Equality and Human Rights v Griffin and Others Admn 17-Dec-2010
An action against the defendant as chairman of the British National Party had been settled in January 2010 on the basis of an undertaking from him that the constitution of the Party would be amended to comply with the requirements of the 2006 Act. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.245990