The plaintiff had obtained a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his tenant, from interfering with the quiet enjoyment of the plaintiff and other tenants living in the vicinity of the demised premises. The plaintiff successfully moved to commit for contempt one Murray who had assisted in the holding of a boxing match on the premises, and who now appealed.
Held: The order was upheld. Murray’s liability was the aiding and abetting of the breach of the injunction. Lindley LJ suggested that there might be a wider principle in play: ‘A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction, which is technically wrong unless he is bound by the injunction, is one thing; and a motion to commit a man for contempt of Court, not because he is bound by the injunction by being a party to the cause, but because he is conducting himself so as to obstruct the course of justice, is another and a totally different thing. The difference is very marked. In the one case the party who is bound by the injunction is proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the order of the Court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the other case the Court will not allow its process to be set at naught and treated with contempt.’
Judges:
Lindley LJ
Citations:
[1897] 1 Ch 545, [1897] UKLawRpCh 22
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Steen v Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Attorney-General v Punch Ltd and Another CA 23-Mar-2001
The appellant appealed against a finding of contempt of court at common law as regards a report in Punch published when he had been its editor.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The A-G had failed to establish the mens rea of contempt in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.245601
