Pumfrey J considered the test to be applied when a party applied for leave to commence proceedings for contempt of court against another party: ‘It seems to me, in the light of the judgment in Malgar v. Leach, that the discretion to permit applications of this nature to proceed must be exercised with very great caution. It can hardly be appropriate, it seems to me, to permit a general investigation of the facts surrounding a particular infringement in the context of contempt proceedings. That is why I have excluded from the permission which I have granted the greater number of the non-disclosures and misrepresentations alleged by the claimants.
It seems to me also that before this discretion is exercised, the claimant must satisfy the court that there is a strong case – and preferably an admitted case – that a particular misrepresentation is untrue.’ and
‘the court must be astute not to allow tenuous or argumentative applications to commit to go forward.’
 EWHC 1192 (Ch)
England and Wales
See Also – Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited, Sony Computer Entertainment UK Limited v Ball, and others ChD 19-Jul-2004
The claimant sought summary judgment in a claim that the defendant had manufactured computer chips which would be used with their playstation computer games consoles to avoid their copy protection systems.
Held: The fact that the chips only . .
Applied – Malgar Ltd v R E Leach Engineering Ltd ChD 1-Nov-1999
The Civil Procedure Rules could not change the substantive law. It therefore remained necessary for it to be shown that in addition to knowing that what was said was false, the party had to have known that what was being said was likely to interfere . .
Cited – Kirk v Walton QBD 24-Jul-2008
The defendant sought leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the claimant saying that she had had no honest belief in the matters deposed in her statement of truth, in that she had substantially exaggerated her injuries.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Contempt of Court
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.272262