The Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others: ChD 30 Jan 2003

The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a right not to incriminate himself, and gave no evidence. He now claimed to have been acting under duress.
Held: Duress required to be shown immediate threats of violence, which remained operative, to which a reasonable person would have taken heed, and an inability to escape the threat. The defendant had failed to establish duress. These proceedings were civil and it was not for the claimant to establish the absence of duress. Evidence of duress in civil contempt proceedings goes merely as a mitigation, and is not a defence. This is not incompatible with the defendants’ human rights. The defendant had not purged his contempt even now, and a sentence of immediate imprisonment of four months was appropriate.

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Smith
Times 11-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 91 (Ch), Times 20-Mar-2003
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedComet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics CA 1971
The court was asked whether a defendant should be cross-examined on an affidavit sworn by him on an application by the plaintiff to commit him for contempt.
Held: The cross-examination was likely to cover issues in the action and on that basis . .
CitedCobra Golf Inc and Another v Rata and Others ChD 11-Oct-1996
An Anton Piller order was wrongfully made where it was used in order to get information to found a later prosecution. The privilege against self incrimination is available under Section 14 of the 1968 Act in contempt proceedings despite the fact . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland v Lynch HL 1975
The House considered the availability of duress as a defence on a charge of aiding and abetting murder. Referring to the basic elements of criminal liability, mens rea and actus reus: ‘Both terms have, however, justified themselves by their . .
CitedRegina v Hudson and Taylor CACD 17-Mar-1971
Two teenage girls committed perjury by failing to identify the defendant. When prosecuted they pleaded duress, on the basis that they had been warned by a group, including a man with a reputation for violence, that if they identified the defendant . .
CitedRegina v Sharpe 1987
A member of a gang of robbers sought to establish a defence of duress. The trial judge had directed the jury ‘but in my judgment the defence of duress is not available to an accused who voluntarily exposes and submits himself to illegal compulsion . . .
CitedCoca-Cola Co and Another v Gilbey and Others ChD 10-Oct-1995
A defendant in an infringement case was ordered to provide information on his associate co-infringers despite his claimed risk of violence. Such a threat was no defence to an action for contempt of court. Duress in civil cases goes as to mitigation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Evidence

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.178786

Dallas v The United Kingdom: ECHR 11 Nov 2013

The applicant challenged her conviction for contempt of court in that whilst a juror, she researched the case before her on the internet, discovering that the defendant had faced an earlier allegation broadly similar. She now said that the conviction orose from failure to follow a direction, not an order. The court set the question for the parties: ‘Did the act of which the applicant was convicted constitute a ‘criminal offence under national law’ at the time when it was committed, for the purposes of Article 7 of the Convention, having regard to the test for contempt of court set out and applied by the Divisional Court in paragraph 38 of its judgment and the test outlined in previous domestic judgment judgments’

38395/12 – Communicated Case, [2013] ECHR 1232, [2014] ECHR 1247
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Citing:
CitedAttorney-General v Sport Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-May-1991
The newspaper was accused of disclosing details of the previous convictions of an absconded suspect in a murder investigation, despite a prior warning from the police that any such publication would be likely to prejudice future criminal . .
CitedSchot and Another, v Regina CACD 12-May-1997
Jurors, after retirement refused to deliver a verdict claiming personal reasons. The were summoned to court to answer charges of contempt of court. Explaining the contempt proceedings that the jurors faced, the trial judge said: ‘[I]n so far as . .
CitedAttorney General v Fraill and Another Admn 16-Jun-2011
The trial judge had directed his jury at a criminal trial: ‘You will make your decision about this case based solely upon the evidence which you hear during this trial, in this courtroom and upon nothing else. Most of us these days have access to . .
At AdmnAttorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Contempt of Court

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518835

Director of Public Prosecutions v Scarlett: CACD 7 Feb 2000

A defendant subject to a confiscation order in criminal proceedings for drugs related offences could be ordered to repatriate assets from banks accounts held abroad. The absence of an explicit power in this behalf did not prevent the order because of the wide power to make such ancillary orders to ensure compliance with an order as appeared necessary. An additional punishment for contempt for failing to obey was not punishing him twice, and he could purge the contempt if he chose.

Times 07-Feb-2000
England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Banking, Contempt of Court

Updated: 23 November 2021; Ref: scu.80043

HM Attorney General v Davey: Admn 29 Jul 2013

The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had researched the internet about allegations against the defendants not put to the jury.
Held: Both defendants were guilty of contempt.
There were however inconsistencies in the directions given and this was a matter which might be taken up by the Rules Committee.

Sir James Munby P, Sweeney J
[2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc CA 1987
The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be . .
CitedAttorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd HL 1991
Injunctions had been granted to preserve the status quo in proceedings brought to prevent the publication of the book ‘Spycatcher’. The defendants published extracts, and now appealed a finding that they had acted in contempt.
Held: The . .
CitedAttorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .

Cited by:
CitedHM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .
CitedHM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513743

Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc: CA 1987

The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be committed if no specific order has been made by the court affecting anyone other than those involved in the proceedings. At common law, if the court makes an order regulating its own procedure and the purpose of the order is plainly to protect the administration of justice, then anyone who subverts that order will be guilty of contempt’.
There was no room for a state of mind which fell short of intention. Lloyd LJ said: ‘ . . that intent may exist, even though there is no desire to interfere with the course of justice. Nor need it be the sole intent. It may be inferred, even though there is no overt proof. The more obvious the interference with the course of justice, the more readily will the requisite intent be inferred.’
Sir Donaldson said of an application for contempt against a third party that: ‘I should like to emphasise with all the power at my command that this case is not primarily about national security or official secrets. It is about the right of private citizens and public authorities to seek and obtain the protection of the courts for confidential information which they claim to be their property’
Lord Donaldson MR set out the intent required to be shown: ‘. . the power of the court to commit for contempt where the conduct complained of is specifically intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice. Such an intent need not be expressly avowed or admitted, but can be inferred from all the circumstances, including the foreseeability of the consequences of the conduct. Nor need it be the sole intention of the contemnor. An intent is to be distinguished from motive or desire . .’

Lloyd LJ, Lord Donaldson MR
[1988] Ch 333, [1987] 3 All ER 276, [1987] 3 WLR 942
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedX 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 . .
CitedSteen 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 . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
CitedHM Solicitor General v Cox and Another QBD 27-May-2016
Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Contempt of Court

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.245989

Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 27 May 2011

An associated claimant alleged contempt against another newspaper for publishing matters so as to defeat the purposes of a privacy injunction granted to her.
Held: Even though the principle claimant had been subsequenty identified with the consent of the court, the order as regards the second claimant remained in place. It was said that the Daily Mail’s article released many items of further information to identify her. False information deliberately given had other purposes, and in practice had also been damaging. However, there no purpose would be served in the court referring the matter to the Attorney-General for contempt. The claimant herself had this power, and the A-G had power to act of his own motion.

Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 1341 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMNB v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 9-Mar-2011
The defendant resisted an order preventing disclosure of information said by the claimant to be private.
Held: At the start of the hearing before herself, she had been told that the application for an interim injunction was no longer opposed. . .
CitedLord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 3-Apr-2007
The appellant sought to restrict publication by the defendants in the Mail on Sunday of matters which he said were a breach of confidence. He had lied to a court in giving evidence, whilst at the same time being ready to trash the reputation of his . .
See AlsoGoodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD 23-May-2011
The claimant had obtained orders restricting publication by the defendant of stories of his relationship with a woman. The order had also restrained publication of their names. The names had since been revealed under parliamentary prvilege, and the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoGoodwin v NGN Ltd and VBN QBD 9-Jun-2011
goodwin_ngn4QBD11
The claimant had obtained an injunction preventing publication of his name and that of his coworker with whom he had had an affair. After widespread publication of his name elsewhere, the defendant had secured the discharge of the order as regards . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.440245

Re Yaxley-Lennon (Aka Tommy Robinson): CACD 1 Aug 2018

Need for clarity in Contempt Allegation

The defendant appealed from his convictions for contempt of court, being said to have broadcast details of criminal prosecutions despite orders to the contrary. He argued that any failure of procedure was fatal to the prosecutions.
Held: As to the first hearing and contempt finding, the appeal failed.
As to the second, ‘ the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order.’
The appeal was allowed and a retrial ordered.
‘the finding of contempt made in Leeds must be quashed because:
(i) It was inappropriate to proceed immediately on the motion of the court to deal with the alleged contempt after immediate steps had been taken to remove the offending video from the internet. An adjournment was necessary to enable the matter to proceed on a fully informed basis; in any event
(ii) The failure to comply with Part 48 of the Rules resulted in there being no clear statement, orally or in writing, of the conduct said to comprise a contempt for contravening the section 4(2) order in place;
(iii) It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order;
(iv) The haste with which the contempt proceedings were conducted led to an inability of counsel to mitigate fully on the appellant’s behalf.’

Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Turner, McGowan JJ
[2018] EWCA Crim 1856, [2018] WLR(D) 503
Bailii, WLRD
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2), Criminal Justice Act 1925 41
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedM v P (Contempt of Court: Committal Order) CA 1992
Orse Butler v Butler
Failure to observe the proper procedures for service is not necessarily fatal to the lawfulness of a committal order. In each of the two appeals against committal orders comma the contemnor complained of non-compliance . .
CitedNicholls v Nicholls CA 20-Dec-1996
The formalities of committal proceedings are to be strictly observed, but a breach of the formalities may be overlooked if it does not affect the justice of the case.
Lord Woolf MR considered the discretion given to a court to commit for . .
CitedFort Locks Self Storage Limited v Deakin CA 2017
. .
CitedRe West CACD 17-Jul-2014
W, a barrister, appealed against a conviction for contempt of court. He had declined to comply with the directions asked of him by the judge at a pre-trial hearing, saying that the client’s instructions that he was not guilty were sufficient. He was . .
CitedRegina v Montgomery CACD 19-Jul-1994
A witness had refused to give evidence, and found to have committed contempt.
Held: Guidelines were given on sentencing for offences of interfering with the course of justice, criminal contempt, refusal to give evidence and so forth.
The . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Harkins Admn 26-Apr-2013
The Attorney General sought the committal for contempt of the respondents who were said to have published details which might identify two notorious convicted criminals wose identties were protected by injunction. Both defendants indicated that they . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.624157

Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics: CA 1971

The court was asked whether a defendant should be cross-examined on an affidavit sworn by him on an application by the plaintiff to commit him for contempt.
Held: The cross-examination was likely to cover issues in the action and on that basis it was held that it should not have been allowed. A person accused of contempt, like the defendant in a criminal trial, has the right to remain silent.
Where a respondent to an application for committal for contempt had chosen to deploy affidavit evidence before the court, the court had a discretion to allow cross-examination on the contents of those affidavits. However, the court must first be satisfied that the cross-examination will be confined to the allegations of contempt, rather than to wider matters relevant to the merits of the proceedings.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘This case raises questions of some importance. Mr Sparrow [Counsel for the plaintiffs] submitted that in proceedings of this kind the defendant can be compelled to give evidence even against himself. Mr Sparrow pointed out that this is a case of civil contempt and not criminal. The difference is well known. A criminal contempt is one which takes place in the face of the court, or which prejudices a fair trial and so forth. A civil contempt is different. A typical case is disobedience to an order made by the court in a civil action.
I cannot accept counsel’s submission. Although this is a civil contempt, it partakes of the nature of a criminal charge. The defendant is liable to be punished for it. He may be sent to prison. The rules as to criminal charges have always been applied to such a proceeding. I see that Cross J in Yianni v Yianni, so decided; and furthermore we ourselves in this court, in Re Bramblevale Ltd, said that it must be proved with the same degree of satisfaction as in a criminal charge. It follows that the accused is not bound to give evidence unless he chooses to do so. In this connection I quote what Bowen LJ said in Redfern v. Redfern [1891] P 139 at 147, [1886-90] All ER Rep 524 at 528:-
‘It is one of the inveterate principles of English law that a party cannot be compelled to discover that which, if answered, would tend to subject him to any punishment, penalty, forfeiture . . ‘no one is bound to incriminate himself”
This was not always the law in the case of civil contempt. In the days of Sir William Blackstone, 200 years ago, civil contempt was an exception to the general principle. In those days a plaintiff was entitled to deliver interrogatories to the defendant, which the defendant was bound to answer on oath. In his Commentaries (18th Edn, 1829, Bk4, page 287) Sir William Blackstone said that:-
‘this method of making the defendant answer upon oath to a criminal charge, is not agreeable to the genius of the common law in any other instance’;
and he went on to say at page 288:-
‘by long and immemorial usage,[it] has now become the law of the land’.
I am prepared to accept that such a rule did exist in the days of Sir William Blackstone. But I do not think it exists any longer today. The genius of the common law has prevailed. I hold that a man who is charged with contempt of court cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories or to give evidence himself to make him provide his guilt. I reject the submission that the defendant is a compellable witness in the contempt proceedings against him.’
Megaw LJ observed that where there is a bona fide application to cross-examine a deponent on his affidavit in interlocutory proceedings, the application should normally be granted.

Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ
[1971] 2 QB 67, [1971] 1 All ER 1141
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThe Coca-Cola Company and Another v Cengiz Aytacli and others ChD 30-Jan-2003
The claimant having succeeded in an action against the defendants, now sought an order for their committal for contempt, accusing them of having given false evidence, and of having failed to comply with court orders made. The defendant asserted a . .
CitedInplayer Ltd and Another v Thorogood CA 25-Nov-2014
Appeal against a decision that the first defendant in a chancery action was guilty of two contempts of court by reason of untruthful statements in his affidavit. He complained of procedural irregularities affecting the fairness.
Held: ‘the . .
CitedVIS Trading Co Ltd v Nazarov and Others QBD 18-Nov-2015
Application for the first defendant to be committed for alleged contempt of court for having failed to make disclosure of documents as required by a court order.
Whipple J said: ‘In this case, the extent to which the Defendants are in . .
CitedDiscovery Land Company Llc and Others v Jirehouse and Others ChD 7-Jun-2019
The first claimant had requested the committal of a defendant for his alleged failure to comply with undertakings he had given to the court. He now sought an adjournment saying that he had not been advised of the availability of legal aid, and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Contempt of Court

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.179891

Attorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd: HL 1973

The House considered the bringing of contempt proceedings by the Attorney General.
Held: The Attorney General must prove to the criminal standard of proof that the respondent had committed an act or omission calculated to interfere with or prejudice the due administration of justice; conduct is calculated to interfere with or prejudice the due administration of justice if there is a real risk, as opposed to a remote possibility, that interference or prejudice would result.
Lord Reid said: ‘I agree with your Lordships that the Attorney-General has a right to bring before the court any matter which he thinks may amount to contempt of court and which he considers should in the public interest be brought before the court. The party aggrieved has the right to bring before the court any matter which he alleges amounts to contempt but he has no duty to do so. So if the party aggrieved failed to take action either because of expense or because he thought it better not to do so, very serious contempt might escape punishment if the Attorney-General had no right to act. But the Attorney-General is not obliged to bring before the court every prima facie case of contempt reported to him. It is entirely for him to judge whether it is in the public interest that he should act.’
Lord Cross said: ‘It is easy enough to see that any publication which prejudges an issue in pending proceedings ought to be forbidden if there is any real risk that it may influence the tribunal . . But why, it may be said, should a publication be prohibited when there is no such risk? The reason is that one cannot deal with one particular publication in isolation. A publication prejudging an issue in pending litigation which is itself innocuous enough may provoke replies which are far from innocuous but which, as they are replies, it would seem unfair to restrain. So gradually the public would become habituated to, look forward to, and resent the absence of, preliminary discussions in the ‘media’ of any case which aroused widespread interest. An absolute rule, though it may seem to be unreasonable if one looks only to the particular case, is necessary in order to prevent a gradual slide towards trial by newspaper or television.’

Lord Cross, Lord Reid, Lord Simon of Glaisdale
[1973] 3 All ER 54, [1973] 3 WLR 298, [1974] AC 273
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAttorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Citedin Re Lonrho Plc HL 1989
A jury trial procedure for contempt would never be appropriate: ‘If the trial is to be by jury, the possibility of prejudice by advance publicity directed to an issue which the jury will have to decide is obvious. The possibility that a professional . .
CitedAttorney General v Michael Ronald Unger; Manchester Evening News Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited Admn 3-Jul-1997
Complaint was made that the defendant newspapers had caused a serious prejudice to a trial by articles published before the trial of the defendant in criminal proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to theft at the magistrates’ court after she had . .
CitedJones, Re (Alleged Contempt of Court) FD 21-Aug-2013
The Solicitor General sought the committal of the respondent for alleged contempt of court. There had been repeated litigation between the respondent and her former husband as to whether the children should live in Spain with the father or in Wales . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Contempt of Court

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.180689

HM Solicitor General v Cox and Another: QBD 27 May 2016

Applications for committal of the defendants for having taken photographs of court proceedings when their friend was being sentenced for murder and publishing them on Facebook. The SG urged that the offences had aggravating features taking the matter beyond the offence under section 41 of the 1925 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. The offence had been committed. Section 41 of the 1925 Act did not remove the possibility of a charge of contenpt of court for taking photographs in court.
Whilst it was pssible that a person taking photographs might not have the necessary mens rea for the offence: ‘A person cannot defend himself by evidence that, ignorant of the criminal law and unaware of the prohibition on photography, he could not intend to interfere with the administration of justice. If there were no signs prohibiting the taking of photographs in the part of the building where the act takes place or prohibiting the use of mobile phones in court, and there may be none say in canteens, the court could not be left powerless to deal with the risk created to the administration of justice as a result of ignorance of the criminal law on the part of the person whose acts create or risk creating the interference. The same applies to publication of illegally taken photographs in the Facebook postings.
Where the act which constitutes a contempt in the face of the court, or one closely akin to such a contempt, is not a crime, the deliberate breach of a court order of which he has notice will be sufficient. It is not necessary that the person additionally intended by his breach to interfere with the administration of justice, though for the reasons we have set out and which were considered in Dallas, it will generally readily be inferred that such an intention is established. It does not matter in principle whether the order is specific, as in a judge’s direction to a jury on internet searches, or general, as in the public notices in court buildings. The latter are there, either reflecting the criminal law, or, where not, expressing what every judge requires and relies on to let the public and participants know what is required for the administration of justice. Where a person knows of the court order and deliberately breaches it, he knows that the prohibition which he breaches was put in place to prevent interference with the course of justice. Therefore, the questions whether the breach was knowing and deliberate and whether it was intended to interfere with the course of justice amount to the same question, even if the person may not have realised or understood quite how the administration of justice could be interfered with. He would know that it would be put at risk.’

Thomas LCJ L, Ouseley J
[2016] EWHC 1241 (QB), [2016] EMLR 22, [2016] 2 Cr App R 15
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1925 41
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
CitedAttorney-General v Newspaper Publishing plc CA 1987
The court explained the common law basis of the law of contempt of court. Lloyd LJ said: ‘Since the test of contempt is not a breach of the order but interference with the administration of justice, it follows that at common law a contempt may be . .
CitedAttorney-General v Sport Newspapers Ltd QBD 24-May-1991
The newspaper was accused of disclosing details of the previous convictions of an absconded suspect in a murder investigation, despite a prior warning from the police that any such publication would be likely to prejudice future criminal . .
CitedSchot and Another, v Regina CACD 12-May-1997
Jurors, after retirement refused to deliver a verdict claiming personal reasons. The were summoned to court to answer charges of contempt of court. Explaining the contempt proceedings that the jurors faced, the trial judge said: ‘[I]n so far as . .
CitedRegina v Vincent D (Contempt of Court: Illegal Photography) CACD 2004
The appellant was the brother of the defendant in a major drugs trial, which involved a protected witness. He took a photograph in the canteen area, and another from the public gallery facing towards the witness box, witness and bench. The quality . .
CitedRobertson and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 7-Nov-2007
Gough, ‘the naked rambler’, argued that his desire to appear naked in court, an act which he characterised as a fundamental freedom, was not an act calculated to offend the authority and dignity of the court; in order for his naked appearance to . .
CitedAttorney General v Dallas Admn 23-Jan-2012
The A-G, using RSC Order 52, sought a finding that the defendant was in contempt when, as a juror she had conducted internet research about the case, revealing her results to other jury members.
Held: She was in contempt. She had deliberately . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
CitedHM Attorney General v Davey Admn 29-Jul-2013
The Attorney general sought the committal of the defendants for contempt of court alleging their misbehaviour as jurors. One had posted to a facebook account about the trial and lied about it to the judge. The second, in a different trial, had . .
CitedMorris v Crown Office CA 1970
The applicants had been engaged in a calculated and coordinated campaign of disruption of the court.
Held: ‘The archaic description of these proceedings as ‘contempt of court’ is in my view unfortunate and misleading. It suggests that they are . .
CitedDallas v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Feb-2016
Test for contempt was accessible and foreseeable.
The applicant had been convicted of contempt of court in that whilst acting as a juror, and in defiance of an explicit direction from the judge had researched the defendant in the internet, and passed on her findings to other jurors.
Held: the . .

Cited by:
CitedHM Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon QBD 9-Jul-2019
Application by Her Majesty’s Attorney General for an order committing the respondent to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contempt of Court, Crime, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.564987

Bird v Hadkinson: ChD 4 Mar 1999

A party ordered to make disclosure in Mareva proceedings, could be found in contempt where the answers given were technically true, but misleading because of their incompleteness. The party has a clear duty to provide full and accurate disclosure. A deliberate intention to breach the order was not a necessary element for a finding of contempt of court.
Neuberger J
Times 07-Apr-1999, [1999] BPIR 653
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDirector General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) HL 25-Nov-1994
The actions of company employees, acting in the course of their employment and in contempt may put the company employer in contempt also, and even though the company may have given explicit instructions that no infringing agreement should be entered . .

Cited by:
CitedDaltel Europe Ltd and others v Makki and others ChD 3-May-2005
Application was made for leave to bring proceedings for contempt of court. David Richards J said that: ‘Allegations that statements of case and witness statements contain deliberately false statements are by no means uncommon and, in a fair number . .
CitedGulf Azov Shipping Company Ltd v Idisi ComC 22-Nov-2000
Application to commit defendant to prison for contempt of court. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 October 2021; Ref: scu.78410

Financial Times Ltd and others v Interbrew SA: CA 8 Mar 2002

The appellants appealed against orders for delivery up of papers belonging to the claimant. The paper was a market sensitive report which had been stolen and doctored before being handed to the appellant.
Held: The Ashworth Hospital case seemed to have widened the meaning of ‘necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime’ which was the test under section 10 for the disclosure against a newspaper. The human rights of freedom of the press also must be considered. The respondents sought to make a claim for breach of confidence, and accordingly the tests under section 10 was satisfied. The source’s evidently maleficent purpose was critical.
Sedley LJ acknowledged the need to read section 10 of the 1981 Act compatibly with the Convention: ‘The purpose of s.10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is to limit to the necessary minimum any requirement upon journalists to reveal their sources. It has now to be read and applied by our courts, so far as possible, compatibly with the Convention rights: Human Rights Act 1998, s.3(1). For reasons touched on earlier in this judgment, there should be no difficulty about this; but that is not to say that the Convention can simply be treated as background, for it and its jurisprudence may both amplify and modify the hitherto accepted meaning and effect of s.10. For present purposes the Convention right which is in play is the qualified right spelt out in art. 10.’
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley, And, Lord Justice Longmore
Times 21-Mar-2002, Gazette 18-Apr-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 274, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229, [2002] EMLR 446
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 10, European Convention on Human Rights 10
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedNorwich Pharmacal Co and others v Customs and Excise Commissioners HL 26-Jun-1973
Innocent third Party May still have duty to assist
The plaintiffs sought discovery from the defendants of documents received by them innocently in the exercise of their statutory functions. They sought to identify people who had been importing drugs unlawfully manufactured in breach of their . .
CitedAshworth Security Hospital v MGN Ltd CA 18-Dec-2000
The court can order the identity of a wrongdoer to be revealed where the person against whom the order was sought had become involved in his tortious acts. This might apply even where the acts were unlawful, but fell short of being tortious. There . .
CitedCamelot Group Plc v Centaur Communications Plc QBD 15-Jul-1997
Human rights law is no aid in protecting a journalist against an order requiring the return of confidential documents, even though this might identify the source of leak. . .
Appeal fromInterbrew SA v Financial Times Ltd and Others ChD 19-Dec-2001
The claimant was involved in takeover proceedings. Certain confidential documents were taken, doctored, and released to and published by the defendants who now resisted orders for disclosure of the source.
Held: The court must balance the . .
CitedP v T Ltd ChD 7-May-1997
A order for the disclosure of documents can be proper if it is the only method of founding proceedings against a third party, even though there might be no sufficient proof without the documents. An order was made because it was necessary in the . .

Cited by:
CitedAshworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
CitedMersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd QBD 7-Feb-2006
The trust, operators of Ashworth Secure Hospital sought from the defendant journalist disclosure of the name of their employee who had revealed to the defendant matters about the holding of Ian Brady, the Moors Murderer, and in particular medical . .
CitedMersey Care NHS Trust v Ackroyd CA 21-Feb-2007
The defendant journalist had published confidential material obtained from the claimant’s secure hospital at Ashworth. The hospital now appealed against the refusal of an order for him to to disclose his source.
Held: The appeal failed. Given . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
Appeal fromFinancial Times Ltd and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Dec-2009
The claimants said that an order that they deliver up documents leaked to them regarding a possible takeover violated their right to freedom of expression. They complained that such disclosure might lead to the identification of journalistic . .
CitedAMM v HXW QBD 7-Oct-2010
amm_hxwQBD10
The claimant had sought and been granted an injunction to prevent the defendant publicising matters which had passed between them and which were he said private.
Held: The jurisdiction to grant such injunctions was now established. Publication . .
CitedRichard v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 26-May-2017
Disclosure of Journalists’s Source ordered
The claimant had been investigated in connection with allegations (not proceeded with) of historic sexual abuse. The first defendant received information in advance of a search of the claimant’s house, and filmed and broadcast this from a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.167726

Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and News Group Newspapers Ltd: Admn 19 Jul 2011

The court considered the sentence for contempt of court by the defendant newspapers (Daily Mail and The Sun) in their online publication of a photograph which had not been cropped in the way required to avoid the prejudice complained of.
Held: Though in one case the photograph had been removed after only a few hours, each defendant was ordered to pay a fine of pounds 15,000 and the A-G’s costs summarily assessed.
Moses LJ, Owen J
[2011] EWHC 1894 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney General v ITV Central Ltd Admn 15-Jul-2008
The Attorney General sought a finding of contempt against the defendant television company in respect of its reporting of a criminal trial. The defendant in the trial faced a charge of murder. The company broacast to the region on the morning of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 July 2021; Ref: scu.441965

Delaney v Delaney: CA 2 Nov 1995

A County Court judge has no power to imprison a contemnor pending a sentence decision. Time spent in custody awaiting trial for contempt would not automatically be set off against the final sentence. Proceedings for contempt can be restored after sentence so that consideration could be given to whether the contemnor had purged his contempt. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘the enforcement of orders is the prime object and the personal circumstances of the contemnor are a relatively minor consideration’.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR differentiated contempts in the face of the court, saying: ‘I should make absolutely plain that in the course of his submissions Mr Munby put entirely on one side contempts in the face of the court. Those are the subject of special provisions in the lower courts, section 118(1) of the County Court Act 1984 governing the position in the county court and section 12(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 governing the position in the magistrates’ court. A power has long been exercised by the superior courts to detain those committing or apparently committing contempts in the face of the court until the rising of the court on the day of the alleged contempt and there is no reason to doubt the existence of that inherent power. It has, however, no bearing on the present situation which was not such a contempt’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Balcombe LJ
Ind Summary 27-Nov-1995, Times 02-Nov-1995, [1996] QB 387
Contempt of Court Act 1981 14(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedSevketoglu v Sevketoglu CA 21-Aug-2003
The appellant had broken two court orders, and appealed a sentence of two months imprisonment. He had been held on remand for 28 days before the court hearing.
Held: The judge should have given allowance for the time spent in custody already. . .
CitedBalli, Re Contempt of Court Act 1981 (No. 2) ChD 15-Jul-2011
balliContemptChD11
The defendant litigant had been found guilty of contempt in the face of court and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The contemnor now sought to purge his contempt.
Held: The sentence had been imposed as punishment and not to seek to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.79888

Templeton Insurance Ltd v Thomas and Another: CA 5 Feb 2013

The court was asked whether goodwill was to be regarded as an asset in the context of an asset freezig order. A third party company was subject to such and they were said to have broken the order by the purchase at an undervalue of the company business. They now argued that such a sale was not the disposal of an asset within the order.
Held: The appeal failed. The fact that goodwill is an intangible makes it no less an asset than other intangibles, such as choses in action.
Rix, Black, Lewison LJJ
[2013] EWCA Civ 35
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDarashah v UFAC (UK) Ltd CA 1982
A Mareva order had been obtained. The order explicitly included goodwill as an asset of the company, but the defendant argued still that it was not covered as an asset for the injunction.
Held: The court rejected the assertion.
Lord . .

Cited by:
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 April 2021; Ref: scu.470803

Taylor and Taylor v Ribby Hall Leisure Limited and North West Leisure Holdings Limited: CA 6 Aug 1997

In supervisory proceedings against lawyers, claims of abuse of process are to be pursued at the substantive hearing and not by way of pre-emptive applications. Delay in bringing an application to enforce a solicitor’s undertaking can be relevant to the exercise of the discretion to enforce it summarily.
Lord Woolf MR, Hutchison LJ, Mummery LJ
Times 06-Aug-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2220, [1998] 1 WLR 400
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMyers v Elman HL 1939
The solicitor had successfully appealed against an order for a contribution to the other party’s legal costs, after his clerk had filed statements in court which he knew to be misleading. The solicitor’s appeal had been successful.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
CitedAngel Solicitors v Jenkins O’Dowd and Barth ChD 19-Jan-2009
Actions were brought to enforce undertakings given by solicitors to redeem mortgages on the sale of properties, and as to redemption figures provided by lenders who then refused to release the properties. The solicitors had replied to standard form . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.89734

Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc and Others: CA 2 May 1997

A third party was in contempt of court if the proceedings had been significantly, and adversely, affected. It was not necessary that they had been frustrated entirely.
‘The law of contempt is of ancient origin yet of fundamental contemporary importance . . Essentially a creature of common law, contempt has been and continues to be developed and adapted to meet continuing challenges to the ‘supremacy of the law’. One result of this continuing development and concern to protect the many facets of the administration of justice is that there are many forms of contempt’.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ
Times 02-May-1997, [1998] Ch 333, [1997] 1 WLR 927
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAttorney General v Fraill and Another CACD 16-Jun-2011
Juror’s use of Facebook was contempt
The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .
CitedHutcheson v Popdog Ltd and Another CA 19-Dec-2011
The claimant had obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant publishing private materials regarding him. That injunction had been continued by consent but was no challenged by a third party news publisher.
Held: Leave to appeal was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2021; Ref: scu.77990

Hudson v Hudson: CA 23 Mar 1995

The defendant withdrew and spent pounds 20,000 in breach of a Mareva injunction
Held: A sentence of nine months imprisonment was not excessive for a flagrant breach of matrimonial court order.
Ind Summary 18-Apr-1995, Times 23-Mar-1995, [1996] 1 FCR 19
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCrystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others ChD 13-Nov-2006
The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding . .
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 April 2021; Ref: scu.81514

Attorney-General v British Broadcasting Corporation; Same v Hat Trick Productions Ltd: CA 11 Jun 1996

The mention of a case on a television programme remained a contempt of court, despite the humorous context given to the remarks in the broadcast.
Auld LJ said: ‘The degree of risk of impact of a publication on a trial and the extent of that impact may both be affected, in differing degrees according to the circumstances, by the nature and form of the publication and how long it occurred before trial. Much depends on the combination of circumstances in the case in question and the court’s own assessment of their likely effect at the time of publication. This is essentially a value judgment for the court, albeit that it must be sure of its judgment before it can find that there has been contempt. There is little value in making detailed comparisons with the facts of other cases.’
Auld LJ
Times 26-Jul-1996, [1997] EMLR 76
Contempt of Court Act 1981
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney-General v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
When considering a complaint of contempt of court against a newspaper, it should be recognised that any criminal trial, by its very nature, causes all involved in it to become progressively more inward looking, with the capacity to study the . .

Cited by:
CitedAttorney General v Random House Group Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
The Attorney-General sought to restrain the publication of a book which she said would prejudice the defendants in a forthcoming criminal trial. The publisher said that a restraint would be a disproportionate interference in its Article 10 rights. . .
CitedAttorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Another Admn 3-Mar-2011
Complaint was made that the defendant newspapers were in contempt of court in publishing on their respective web-sites showing the defendant in the criminal trial brandishing a gun, and claiming that he was boasting of his involvement.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.77984

Harrow London Borough Council v Johnstone: CA 31 Mar 1995

A local authority was denied a possession order against a Husband when the Wife who had been excluded from the property by a court order surrendered the tenancy.
Times 31-Mar-1995
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed toLondon Borough of Harrow v Johnstone HL 13-Mar-1997
A possession action was lawful against a remaining joint tenant after a notice to terminate the tenancy had been given by the other tenant. An order against interference with possession of property did not extend to matters of the duration of the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromLondon Borough of Harrow v Johnstone HL 13-Mar-1997
A possession action was lawful against a remaining joint tenant after a notice to terminate the tenancy had been given by the other tenant. An order against interference with possession of property did not extend to matters of the duration of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.81268

In Re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2): CA 8 Jul 1993

An employer was not liable for its employee’s action in contempt of court against the company’s clear instructions with regard to anti-competitive agreements.
Times 08-Jul-1993, Independent 14-Jul-1993
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoDirector General of Fair Trading v Smiths Concrete: re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete 1992
For a person to be found in contempt of a court order it is necessary to show that that he knew of the relevant order and with that knowledge he intended to do the act which amounted to a breach of the court order. It is not necessary to show that . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromDirector General of Fair Trading v Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd, sub nom Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No 2) HL 25-Nov-1994
The actions of company employees, acting in the course of their employment and in contempt may put the company employer in contempt also, and even though the company may have given explicit instructions that no infringing agreement should be entered . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.82208

Jones v Jones: CA 19 Mar 1993

H appealed against his sentence of six months imprisonment for contempt of court in breaching a non-molestation order.
Held: Whilst Ansah could not be used to establish a principle that imprisonment for contempt should be a last resort only, the sentence here could be reduced to three months. The use of committal orders in contempt cases in family proceedings need not necessarily only be in the last resort.
Russell, Simon Brown LJJ, Sir Michael Fox
Times 23-Mar-1993
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAnsah v Ansah CA 1977
Ormrod LJ: ‘Orders made ex parte are anomalies in our system of justice which generally demands service or notice of the proposed proceedings on the opposite party: see Craig v Karssen [1943] KB 256, 262. Nevertheless, the power of the court to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.82606

In R B (Minors) (Wardship: Power to Detain): CA 24 May 1994

A wardship court may not order the detention of a person after an arrest without a finding first of contempt.
Times 24-May-1994, [1994] 2 FLR 479
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedZakharov and Others v White and Others ChD 28-Oct-2003
The defendant challenged a bench warrant issued out of the Chancery Division for his arrest. He said the lack of any written procedure made it non-compliant with his human rights, and a warrant could not be issued without a finding of contempt.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.81611

Burton v Winters: CA 2 Jun 1993

The defendant’s garage had encroached by one brick’s width on the plaintiff’s land and had been built in 1975. The plaintiff obtained a declaration that that was the position in 1990 but was refused the mandatory injunction which she sought. The plaintiff would not accept this conclusion and she trespassed on, and interfered with, the defendant’s garage and land. The defendants obtained an injunction to restrain her from doing so, but she continued, and she was the subject of an application for committal for contempt, and she was committed for contempt for a period of two years. She appealed.
Held: She had not been entitled to use self help. Self help was wrong in a complicated case, but abatement is available in simple cases where the abatement would remove the nuisance and the cost of legal proceedings could not be justified. Self help to overcome a trespass by encroachment could rarely be justified.
Lloyd LJ discussed the relevant principles of self help: ‘Ever since the assize of nuisance became available, the courts have confined the remedy by way of self-redress to simple cases such as an overhanging branch, or an encroaching root, which would not justify the expense of legal proceedings, and urgent cases which require an immediate remedy. Thus, it was Bracton’s view that where there is resort to self-redress, the remedy should be taken without delay. In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book III, chapter 1, we find: ‘And the reason why the law allows this private and summary method of doing one’s self justice, is because injuries of this kind, which obstruct or annoy such things as are of daily convenience and use, require an immediate remedy; and cannot wait for the slow progress of the ordinary forms of justice.’
The modern textbooks, both here and in other common law jurisdictions, follow the same line: see Salmond and Heuston on Torts, 20th ed. (1992) p. 485; Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 16th ed. (1989) p. 36; Fleming, The Law of Torts, 7th ed. (1987), p. 415 and Prosser and Keeton, The Law of Torts, 4th ed. (1971), p.641. In Prosser and Keeton we find: ‘Consequently the privilege [of abatement] must be exercised within a reasonable time after knowledge of the nuisance is acquired or should have been acquired by the person entitled to abate; if there has been sufficient delay to allow resort to legal process, the reason for the privilege fails, and the privilege with it.’
. . And: ‘In my opinion, this never was an appropriate case for self-redress, even if the plaintiff had acted promptly. There was no emergency. There were difficult questions of law and fact to be considered and the remedy by way of self-redress, if it resulted in the demolition of the garage wall, would have been out of all proportion to the damage suffered by the plaintiff.’ As to the refusal of the mandatory injunction he said: ‘Self redress is a summary remedy, which is justified only in clear and simple cases, or in an emergency.’
Anthony Lloyd LJ
Gazette 02-Jun-1993, [1993] 1 WLR 1077, [1993] 3 All ER 847
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedMoffett v Brewer 1848
Greene J said: ‘This summary method of redressing a grievance, by the act of an injured party, should be regarded with great jealousy, and authorised only in cases of particular emergency, requiring a more speedy remedy than can be had by the . .

Cited by:
AppliedChamberlain v Lindon Admn 18-Mar-1998
The appellant challenged the dismissal of his private prosecution of the defendant in destroying a new garden wall. The magistrates had found a lawful excuse in that the defendant said that the wall had been constructed to obstruct his private right . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.78775

Caribbean General Insurance Co Ltd v Frizzell Insurance Brokers: CA 4 Nov 1993

The judge was wrong to re-instate a case after there had been repeated breaches of unless orders by the plaintiff. Peremptory orders of the court must be obeyed unless excusable.
Gazette 19-Jan-1994, Times 04-Nov-1993
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromCaribbean Gold Ltd v Alga Shipping Ltd (The Nova Scotia) QBD 2-Jun-1993
The time for service of a writ was extended after an excusable error by solicitors. The writ had been issued but the guidance given had been confusing. . .

Cited by:
Appealed toCaribbean Gold Ltd v Alga Shipping Ltd (The Nova Scotia) QBD 2-Jun-1993
The time for service of a writ was extended after an excusable error by solicitors. The writ had been issued but the guidance given had been confusing. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.78901

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal: ComC 21 Oct 2010

The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants.
David Steel J
[2010] EWHC 2640 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.425386

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others: ComC 5 May 2011

The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders.
Christopher Clarke J
[2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 6-Oct-2010
The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.434893

Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others: ComC 6 Oct 2010

The third respondent sought to strike out an application for his committal for failure to comply with orders made in support of proceedings to enforce a substantial judgment.
Blair J
[2010] EWHC 2458 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd ComC 17-May-2005
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd CA 24-Oct-2005
The defendants who were resident in Greece appealed a decision that the English court had jurisdiction over them, by virtue of a close connection of the matter with earlier proceedings heard here.
Held: The fact that the defendants were all . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 28-Jul-2006
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Another ComC 14-Mar-2007
Judgment on quantum. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and others ComC 25-May-2007
Application for an order to prevent some defendants pursuing action in other jurisdictions. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 11-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 20-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another CA 4-Apr-2008
The court was asked whether the Commercial Court had international jurisdiction to make an order for the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, and a freezing order, in relation to the judgment debtors’ interest in the concession . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 23-May-2008
Application for interpretation of a receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another (No 3) CA 6-Jun-2008
The court was asked whether the English court has jurisdiction following judgment to grant an anti-suit injunction against foreign judgment debtors (one of whom has a domicile in a Brussels I Regulation State) restraining them from pursuing . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd and Another ComC 17-Jun-2008
Application for further order of payment of costs of action on account. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and others CA 28-Jul-2008
The judgment creditor appealed an order refusing to oblige the defendant company to attend court and provide information about its means. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another ComC 21-Oct-2008
The court heard matters relating to the recovery by the claimant of $63,000,000. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and others CA 13-Nov-2008
The creditors sought leave to appeal against orders made in the course of proceedings to recover a very substantial debt from a foreign resident company. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company Sal CA 6-Feb-2009
Appeal from order with regard to management of receivership. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .

Cited by:
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal ComC 21-Oct-2010
The court held a case management conference with regard to an intended application for committal for contempt of one of the defendants. . .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 21-Jan-2011
. .
See AlsoConsolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Another v Masri CA 3-Feb-2011
. .
See AlsoMasri and Another v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others ComC 3-Mar-2011
On notice hearing with regard to without notice receivership order. . .
See AlsoMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Company Sal and Others ComC 5-May-2011
The applicant, and judgment creditor sought orders for committal for contempt by the defendant companies and officers after failing to comply with court orders. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 March 2021; Ref: scu.425312

Newson-Smith v Al Zawawi: QBD 21 Jul 2017

Whipple J
[2017] EWHC 1876 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoAl Zawawi v Newson-Smith QBD 27-Oct-2016
Defendant’s, having been told that the Master hearing their case found their evidence to date unreliable, applied to him to recuse himself. He refused and the parties now appealed from his refusal of that application.
Held: The appeal was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 March 2021; Ref: scu.591312

Bishop of N v Earl of Kent: 1500

Jurors were fined both for disobedience to the orders of the judge and also for discussions by one of them about the case they were trying with an external party
[1500] YBT 14 Hen 7 pl 4
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAttorney General v Fraill and Another CACD 16-Jun-2011
Juror’s use of Facebook was contempt
The court considered whether a juror had committed contempt of court. She had communicated with a defendant via Facebook, despite explicit warnings not to use the internet.
Held: Both juror and defendant in the trial had committed contempt of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 March 2021; Ref: scu.446110

JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko and Others: ChD 17 May 2011

The claimant applied to commit a defendant to prison for contempt of court for failure to comply with the disclosure provisions in an international freezing order served personally on him in Cyprus. After service of the freezing order and the substituted service of the committal application, he had made no response, either by communicating with the Bank or with the court, or by instructing legal representatives to do so. He had not attended nor offered any excuse for not doing so.
Briggs J
[2011] EWHC B11 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 March 2021; Ref: scu.440233

Absolute Living Developments Ltd v DS7 Ltd and Others: ChD 5 Jul 2018

Allegation of seven breaches of freezing order by one defendant.
Held: Marcus Smith J summarised the law that applies to establish that there has been a contempt of court by virtue of the breach of such an order: ‘(1) Of critical importance is the order that is said to have been breached. As has been seen, the order generally must bear a penal notice,[23] must have been personally served on the defendant,[24] and must be capable of being complied with (in the sense that the time for compliance is in the future).[25] Additionally, the order must be clear and unambiguous.[26]
(2) The breach of the order must have been deliberate. This includes acting in a manner calculated to frustrate the purpose of the order.[27] A difficult question relates to what ‘deliberate’ means. It is not necessary that the defendant intended to breach the order, in the sense that he or she knew its terms and knew that his or her conduct was in breach of the order. It is sufficient that the defendant knew of the order and that his or her conduct in response was deliberate as opposed to inadvertent . .
(3) Deliberate breach of an order, in the sense described, is very significant. It is clearly in the public interest that court orders be obeyed.
(4) The standard of proof, in relation to the allegation, is to the criminal standard, that is beyond all reasonable doubt.’
Marcus Smith J
[2018] EWHC 1717 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSpectravest Inc v Aperknit ChD 1988
The parties had disputed the use of a Puss-n-Boots design motif used on garments. The defendant had undertaken to surrender goods using the motif, and not to further infringe the plaintiff’s copyright. Later the defendant had obtained legal advice . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 February 2021; Ref: scu.618984

Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others: ChD 13 Nov 2006

The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding out the threat of future punishment as a means of securing the protection which the injunction is primarily there to do.’ and ‘So far as the penalties are concerned, first, the court may impose an immediate custodial sentence limited to a two-year maximum. A person committed to prison for contempt of court is entitled to unconditional release after serving half of the sentence. A committal order is appropriate where there is serious contumacious flouting of orders of the court.’
Lawrence Collins J
[2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPospischal v Phillips CA 20-Jan-1988
Where property was sold, and assets dissipated in breach of a Mareva injunction, an immediate prison sentence was necessary to both protect the plaintiff and punish the defendant. However, the court substituted a sentence of six weeks’ imprisonment . .
See AlsoCrystalmews Ltd (in Liquidation) v Metterick and others ChD 25-Oct-2006
Freezing orders had been made in the course of winding up proceedings after the company was found to have been involved in VAT fraud. Applications were made for the committal of defendants for breach of the freezing orders. . .
CitedHudson v Hudson CA 23-Mar-1995
The defendant withdrew and spent pounds 20,000 in breach of a Mareva injunction
Held: A sentence of nine months imprisonment was not excessive for a flagrant breach of matrimonial court order. . .
CitedAquilina v Aquilina CA 24-Mar-2004
The applicant appealed a sentence of six months imprisonment for breaches of a non-molestation injunction.
Held: The breaches had been non-violent, and the court had not considered whether he was prepared to purge his contempt. A balance had . .
CitedHale v Tanner CA 22-Aug-2000
When attaching a power of arrest on a non-molestation order the court should consider attaching it only to that element which restricts violence or proximity rather than to any part relating to harassment. When considering sentence for a breach, the . .
CitedGulf Azov Shipping Company v Idisi CA 2001
The defendant was found to have committed a serious breach of a freezing injunction.
Held: A committal order is appropriate where there is serious contumacious flouting of orders of the court. The sentence imposed was three months suspended on . .
CitedM (Children) (Contact Order) CA 11-Apr-2005
Where a contemnor sould be fined but would be unable to pay a fine at the level thought appropriate, that was not a good reason to impose imprisonment. . .

Cited by:
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
aspect_christensenChD10
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
aspect_christensenChD10
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408557

Blue Sky One Ltd and Others v Blue Airways Llc and Others: ComC 1 Feb 2010

The court gave reasons for holding one defendant in contempt, and debarring them from taking part, having failed to comply with a grounding order for one of the aircraft at issue.
Beatson J
[2010] EWHC 128 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.396472

Associated Newspapers Ltd v United Kingdom: ECHR 30 Nov 1994

The newspaper said that a finding against it of contempt of court for publishing material derived from a jury’s deliberations infringed its rights of free speech.
Held: The complaint was declared inadmissible. ‘The Commission agrees with the applicants that the fines imposed in the present case amounted to an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, and also agrees that the interference was ‘prescribed by law’. In connection with the question whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim, the Commission finds, as indeed the applicants accept, that the aim was to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. It would add that the term ‘judiciary’ comprises the entire machinery of justice, including the proper functioning of the jury system (cf., Euro. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 34, para. 55). It is an important element of that system that jurors should express themselves freely in the jury room without fear of outside disclosure of their views and opinions. To this extent the law may also serve to protect the rights of individual jurors themselves.
. . In connection with the legislation as such [the 1981 Act], the Commission notes that the jury system in the United Kingdom is founded on the premise that jurors will express themselves freely in the jury room in the knowledge that what they say will not be used outside. If a juror thought that what he said could subsequently be made public, it is possible that he would bear in mind the future use to which his words might be put, and not just the case in hand. The unlimited prohibition on disclosure is then seen to be an inevitable protection for jurors and can therefore be regarded as ‘necessary’ in a democratic society which has decided to retain this particular form of jury trial.’,br />The Commission added that it was not called on to assess the compatibility of section 8 with article 10 in circumstances involving a conviction for research into jury methods as such, and stated: ‘The present case relates rather to revelations of the jury’s deliberations in one specific case of considerable public interest, including statements by the jurors concerned about the opinions and attitudes of other members of the jury. The applicants were well aware that the information they published was sensitive, and should have been aware that its disclosure could put other individual jurors in an invidious position.
The Commission finds, in the circumstances of the present case, that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression did not take the State beyond the margin of appreciation which it enjoyed.’
Mm A Weizel P
24770/94, [1994] ECHR 58
HUDOC, Bailii
Citing:
Appeal fromHM Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others HL 4-Feb-1994
Following the acquittal of a prominent politician on a charge of conspiracy to murder, the New Statesman magazine published an article, based on an interview with one of the jurors, which gave an account of significant parts of the jury’s . .
At First InstanceHM Attorney General v Associated Newspapers Ltd and Others QBD 9-Dec-1992
A newspaper was held to have been in contempt of court for publishing details of the deliberations of a jury, even though it had not solicited the information. Beldam LJ said of the word ‘disclosure’: ‘It is a word wide enough to encompass the . .

Cited by:
CitedHM Attorney General v Seckerson and Times Newspapers Ltd Admn 13-May-2009
ag_seckersonAdmn2009
The first defendant had been foreman of a jury in a criminal trial. He was accused of disclosing details of the jury’s votes and their considerations with concerns about the expert witnesses to the second defendant. The parties disputed the extent . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.343072

Attorney General v Random House Group Ltd: QBD 15 Jul 2009

The Attorney-General sought to restrain the publication of a book which she said would prejudice the defendants in a forthcoming criminal trial. The publisher said that a restraint would be a disproportionate interference in its Article 10 rights.
Held: The court considered the proper reluctance to restrain an anticipated contempt of court.
Tugendhat J
[2009] EWHC 1727 (QB), [2010] EMLR 9
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10, Contempt of Court Act 1981 2(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAttorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 3) CA 1992
To found a complaint of contempt the risk arising from the publication must be practical rather than theoretical or illusory. Publicity concerning a named defendant before a jury during the jury trial of another charge did not give rise to a serious . .
CitedLeary v Britiah Broadcasting Corporatin CA 29-Sep-1989
Lord Donaldson MR considered an application for an injunction to prevent a publication which it was said would create a contempt of court, and said: ‘I am very concerned that no one should think that on a speculative basis you can go to the courts . .
CitedAttorney General v MGN Limited CA 1997
There had been, over some years, ‘saturation coverage’ of the relationship between a television personality and her boyfriend. Disclosures were made about his violence and his previous convictions. He came to be arrested and charged with a serious . .
CitedAttorney-General v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 1986
When considering a complaint of contempt of court against a newspaper, it should be recognised that any criminal trial, by its very nature, causes all involved in it to become progressively more inward looking, with the capacity to study the . .
CitedAttorney-General v English HL 1981
The risk of impediment or prejudice to a trial from a publication has to be assessed at the date of publication. ‘Substantial risk’ in section 2(2) means a risk which is more than remote. Lord Diplock said: ‘Next for consideration is the . .
CitedAttorney General v Independent Television News and Others CA 1995
Leggatt LJ said that counsel for the Attorney General was correct when he submitted that: ‘It does not follow that because a risk had been created by the broadcast, further publication in newspapers would not create fresh and added risk of . .
CitedAttorney General v MGN Limited CA 1997
There had been, over some years, ‘saturation coverage’ of the relationship between a television personality and her boyfriend. Disclosures were made about his violence and his previous convictions. He came to be arrested and charged with a serious . .
CitedAttorney-General v British Broadcasting Corporation; Same v Hat Trick Productions Ltd CA 11-Jun-1996
The mention of a case on a television programme remained a contempt of court, despite the humorous context given to the remarks in the broadcast.
Auld LJ said: ‘The degree of risk of impact of a publication on a trial and the extent of that . .

Cited by:
CitedHM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.376265

Lexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others: ChD 2 Jul 2007

Application was made for the committal to prison for contempt of court by the first defendant for breaches of court orders.
Henderson J
[2007] EWHC 1508 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Application fromLexi Holdings v Luqman and others CA 6-Aug-2007
Application for permission to appeal – granted. . .
Appeal fromLexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others CA 29-Aug-2007
Claim by valuers on administration of mortgage company for sums paid to the company by lenders to pay for valuations. . .
See AlsoLexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others ChD 19-Oct-2007
. .
See AlsoLexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others ChD 16-Nov-2007
. .
See AlsoLexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others ChD 15-Jan-2008
Whether a prisoner serving a sentence for contempt of court is subject to the same rules as to early release etc as other prisoners.
Held: ‘paragraph 5.2 of PSO 6300 is unlawful in so far as it purports to require, or is interpreted by the . .
See AlsoLexi Holdings v Luqman and Another ChD 16-Jul-2008
. .
CitedShah v Patel and others CA 15-Aug-2008
The appellant had been committed after failing to file evidence with the registrar after, in the insolvency of the company, another director had filed false evidence to explain missing funds. However the order had required the documents to be filed . .
See AlsoLexi Holdings Plc v Luqman and others CA 26-Feb-2009
Attempts by company administrators to recover sums allegedly misapplied by former directors. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.254488

M (Children) (Contact Order): CA 11 Apr 2005

Where a contemnor sould be fined but would be unable to pay a fine at the level thought appropriate, that was not a good reason to impose imprisonment.
[2005] EWCA Civ 615, [2005] 2 FLR 1006
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 14.2
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCrystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others ChD 13-Nov-2006
The court considered the punishment on finding contempt proved for breach of a freezing order: ‘In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court’s order as well as serving a coercive function by holding . .
CitedAspect Capital Ltd v Christensen ChD 29-Mar-2010
aspect_christensenChD10
The defendant, a former senior employee had appeared dishonest and been dismissed. A search and seizure order was obtained, and the claimant now said that the defendant was in contempt of it. The parties disputed the extent of his admissions of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 January 2021; Ref: scu.226140

Santiago v Regina: CACD 8 Mar 2005

The defendant had been convicted but refused to leave his cell to attend court to be sentenced. The judge had adjourned a hearing on contempt for seven days.
Held: The judge was under no duty to hear any allegation of contempt on the day. Previous authorities had established that urgency was material not to the jurisdiction but to whether and how it should be exercised. Where the delay was no longer than was necessary to make adequate arrangements for a summary trial, that delay was not unlawful. ‘The effect of Balogh is that a judge should not punish summarily unless it is ‘imperative for the court to act immediately’, unless ‘nothing else [would] do to protect the ends of justice’ and unless the defendant was being punished to ‘ensure that a trial in progress or about to start can be brought to a proper and dignified end’.
Hooper LJ, Silber J, David Paget QC
[2005] EWCA Crim 556, Times 16-Mar-2005
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBalogh v St Albans Crown Court CA 1975
The defendant, a solicitors’ clerk attending a trial, grew bored, and set out to release laughing gas into the court through a vent. He had been seen earlier and was caught before he achieved his end. He appealed his committal; for contempt, saying . .
CitedRegina v Griffin 1989
The court considered the extent of the jurisdiction to commit for contempt. Mustill LJ said: ‘We should add that certain dicta (for example, in Balogh) may be read as suggesting that the court has no jurisdiction to adopt the summary process unless . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.223635

Derrick Burgess, Chris Furbert, Sinclair Smith and Orin Simmons v Stevedoring Services Limited: PC 15 Jul 2002

PC (Bermuda) An injunction had been granted requiring the trade union to cease industrial action. The action was settled, but the injunction was not released. Later, there were furthe rdisputes, and committal was sought.
Held: The later action taken was in the nature of an industrial dispute of the sort restrained. The trade union, by the decisions of its officials and meetings prescribed by the rules, had power to decide not to comply with its collective obligations. But it had no power on behalf of its members to decide that they would not comply with their individual obligations. That was a matter for them. Although the action was a breach, the way it had been enforced without proper notice, and after such a delay was an abuse of process, and the injunction should be discharged.
[2002] UKPC 39
PC, PC, Bailii, PC
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedSecretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No 2) CA 1972
Railway employees had been instructed by their unions to ‘work to rule’ and more specifically to ban overtime, Sunday and rest day working. ‘Working to rule’ meant giving an unreasonably literal construction to certain requirements of the railway . .
CitedLloyds Bowmaker Ltd v Britannia Arrow Holdings Plc CA 1988
It is the duty of a plaintiff who has obtained an interlocutory injunction to proceed to trial and not simply to sit back and rely upon the injunction until such time as the defendant moves to discharge it. The court have stressed the importance of . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.179170

Chuck v Cremer ([1846] EngR 1155): 1 Dec 1846

A party, who knows of a null or irregular order, should apply to discharge it. Whilst such an order is in existence it must not be disobeyed.
[1846] EngR 1155, (1846) 1 Coop T Cott 338, (1846) 47 ER 884
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoChuck v Cremer 24-Jul-1846
‘A party who knows of an order, whether null and void, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it . . It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null and void – . .
See AlsoChuck v Cremer 19-Nov-1846
A party in contempt may give a notice of motion, although he cannot move until the contempt of court is cleared. With referance to clearing contempt the answer must be taken be sufficient until exceptions are actually allowed.
Moving upon the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoChuck v Cremer ([1846] EngR 1154) 1-Dec-1846
An order of the court of which the party affected by it has notice, though not formally served upon him is not to be disregarded or treated by him as a nullity, however certain it may be that the order is erroneous, and would, upon a proper . .
See AlsoChuck v Cremer 9-Feb-1848
Where an action is referred by an order at nisi prius this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the certificate of the referee or the judgment entered to pursuant thereto, on any ground on which it would not have such jurisdiction if the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.303050

Chuck v Cremer ([1846] EngR 1154): 1 Dec 1846

An order of the court of which the party affected by it has notice, though not formally served upon him is not to be disregarded or treated by him as a nullity, however certain it may be that the order is erroneous, and would, upon a proper application for that purpose be discharged
[1846] EngR 1154, (1846) 2 Ph 113, (1846) 41 ER 884
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoChuck v Cremer 24-Jul-1846
‘A party who knows of an order, whether null and void, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it . . It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null and void – . .
See AlsoChuck v Cremer 19-Nov-1846
A party in contempt may give a notice of motion, although he cannot move until the contempt of court is cleared. With referance to clearing contempt the answer must be taken be sufficient until exceptions are actually allowed.
Moving upon the . .
See AlsoChuck v Cremer ([1846] EngR 1155) 1-Dec-1846
A party, who knows of a null or irregular order, should apply to discharge it. Whilst such an order is in existence it must not be disobeyed. . .

Cited by:
See AlsoChuck v Cremer 9-Feb-1848
Where an action is referred by an order at nisi prius this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the certificate of the referee or the judgment entered to pursuant thereto, on any ground on which it would not have such jurisdiction if the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 January 2021; Ref: scu.303049

Harris v Harris: CA 8 Nov 2001

On an application by a contemnor to be purged of his contempt, the judge could only answer ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Not Yet.’ It was not right to add further complexity to release the contemnor, but with some further part of his sentence suspended. The powers of the court in such applications need to be clear and simple.
Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Waller and Lord Justice Mantell
Times 19-Nov-2001, Gazette 10-Jan-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 1645, [2002] Fam 253, [2002] 1 All ER 185, [2001] 3 FCR 640, [2002] Fam Law 93, [2002] 2 WLR 747, [2002] 1 FLR 248
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
OverruledHarris v Harris; Harris v Attorney General FD 21-May-2001
The applicant had been committed for ten months for contempt, being in breach of family court injunctions. He applied to be released after two months on the basis that the unserved balance of the sentence be suspended. The court held that it had the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 January 2021; Ref: scu.166836

Griffin v Griffin: CA 7 Apr 2000

It was not wrong to make an order suspending commitment for contempt of court provided he complied with another order which had been made without any limit of time. The power to commit remains a common law power with statutory restrictions. An order can be valid and within the judge’s discretion even if it is one which should not normally be made.
Times 28-Apr-2000, Gazette 18-May-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 119
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 02 January 2021; Ref: scu.147152

Regina v Schofield: CACD 1993

After the jury’s verdict, a juror asked the bailiff if the jury could have asked a question, and on receiving an affirmative response, the juror went on to say that the jury had not understood the offence of affray and had written a note to that effect. Such a note was found in the jury room, and the court was invited to consider what transpired between the juror and the bailiff, but the argument was rejected on the ground that to give any meaning to that conversation it would be necessary to lift the veil of secrecy from the jury room and enquire what had happened within.
(1993) CLR 217
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Miah and Akhbar CACD 9-Dec-1996
A message was offered to one of the solicitors acting for a defendant from a relative of a juror after the trial.
Held: Rules against hearing of jury deliberations are wider than Contempt of Court Act. The court refused to commence any Young . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 26 December 2020; Ref: scu.183499

D v D (Access: Contempt: Committal): CA 9 Nov 1990

An order granting custody did not require a person to or abstain from a particular act, and could not therefore be the source of a comittal for contempt of it.
Orse ; Dempster v Dempster
[1991] 2 FLR 34, Independent 09-Nov-1990
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIn re S-C (Children) v H-C CA 28-Jan-2010
The appellant appealed against an order finding her in contempt of court for breach of a court order. The finding had been made in the absence of the parties. She had reported to the police a distorted version of a medical report in the children . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 December 2020; Ref: scu.396469

M v P (Contempt of Court: Committal Order): CA 1992

Orse Butler v Butler
Failure to observe the proper procedures for service is not necessarily fatal to the lawfulness of a committal order. In each of the two appeals against committal orders comma the contemnor complained of non-compliance with the rules of service. In the first, the order had been served by the court rather than served personally by the applicant. In the second the contemnor complained that contrary to order 29 rule 115 no order had been served on him and that it was on the wrong court form.
Held: dismissing the appeals. A failure to observe proper service procedures was not necessarily fatal to the lawfulness of the order; the court exercising it’s discretion under Section 13(3) of the 1960 Act, had to take into account the interests of those affected by the content and the need to maintain its authority. Since neither contemnor had suffered injustice the orders would stand despite the irregularities.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington said: ‘In all contempt cases, justice requires the court to take account of the interests of at least three categories of person, namely, (a) the contemnor (b) the ‘victim’ of the contempt and (c) other users of the court for whom the maintenance of the authority of the court is of supreme importance. The interests of the alleged contemnor require that he should have the right to be informed of the charges which he has to meet, to be advised and represented if he so wishes (subject to his being eligible for legal aid or otherwise able to finance his defence), to be given a full and fair opportunity of meeting those charges and, if found guilty of contempt of court, to be informed in sufficiently clear terms of what has been found against him. In all these cases the court has been concerned to ensure that these fundamental requirements are met in the way in which, particularly in the case of the county courts, they are intended to be and should be met. However, we have tended to overlook the fact that they may in some circumstance be met in other ways. Whilst this court should always be quick to identify and condemn any departure from the proper procedures, the interests of the victim and of maintaining the authority of the courts require that in deciding what use to make of its powers under section 13(3) of the Act of 1960 this court should ask itself whether, notwithstanding such a departure, the contemnor has suffered any injustice. It does not follow that he has, nor does it follow that the proper course is to quash the order. If he has not suffered any injustice the committal order should stand, subject if necessary to variation of the order to take account of any technical or procedural defects. In other cases it may be possible to do justice between the parties by exercising the court’s power under section 13(3) by making ‘such other order may be just.’ If the circumstances are such that justice requires the committal order to be quashed amongst the options available is that of ordering a retrial . .’
Lord Donaldson held: ‘In all contempt cases, justice requires the court to take account of the interests of at least three categories of persons, namely, (a) the contemnor (b) the ‘victim’ of the contempt and (c) other users of the court for whom the maintenance of the authority of the court is of supreme importance.’
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
[1993] Fam 167, [1992] 4 All ER 833, [1992] 3 WLR 813
England and Wales
Cited by:
Dictum ApprovedNicholls v Nicholls CA 20-Dec-1996
The formalities of committal proceedings are to be strictly observed, but a breach of the formalities may be overlooked if it does not affect the justice of the case.
Lord Woolf MR considered the discretion given to a court to commit for . .
[1996] EWCA Civ 1271, [1997] 1 WLR 314, [1997] 1 FLR 649
CitedRe Yaxley-Lennon (Aka Tommy Robinson) CACD 1-Aug-2018
Need for clarity in Contempt Allegation
The defendant appealed from his convictions for contempt of court, being said to have broadcast details of criminal prosecutions despite orders to the contrary. He argued that any failure of procedure was fatal to the prosecutions.
Held: As to . .
[2018] EWCA Crim 1856, [2018] WLR(D) 503

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 December 2020; Ref: scu.624163

Fort Locks Self Storage Limited v Deakin: CA 2017

[2017] EWCA Civ 404
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRe Yaxley-Lennon (Aka Tommy Robinson) CACD 1-Aug-2018
Need for clarity in Contempt Allegation
The defendant appealed from his convictions for contempt of court, being said to have broadcast details of criminal prosecutions despite orders to the contrary. He argued that any failure of procedure was fatal to the prosecutions.
Held: As to . .
[2018] EWCA Crim 1856, [2018] WLR(D) 503

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 December 2020; Ref: scu.624164

Regina v Sherwood, ex parte The Telegraph Group plc and Others: CACD 12 Jun 2001

When a court considered ordering a restriction on reporting of a case until after it was concluded, it had a three stage test to apply. First, would the reporting create a not insubstantial risk of prejudice. If there was no such risk, an order could not be made. Second, would an order reduce or remove the threat, and could the threat of harm be achieved by some lesser order. Only then could a court come to ask whether the degree of risk which might be run outweighed the competing duty to provide an open system of justice This was a case in which it had been necessary to order a split trial, and in addition to other factors the later trial may have been prejudiced by reporting of the first, and the order was properly made.
Longmore LJ said: ‘It is clear that the duty of the Court of Appeal when exercising this jurisdiction is not merely to review the decision of the trial judge who made the order under challenge, but rather to come to its own independent conclusions on the material placed before it’
Longmore LJ
Times 12-Jun-2001, Gazette 12-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1075, [2001] 1 WLR 1983
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2), Criminal Justice Act 1988 159, European Convention on Human Rights 6 10
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedA and Others, Regina v; Regina v The Crown Court at the Central Criminal Court ex parte A Times Newspapers Ltd etc CACD 13-Jan-2006
The defendant was to be charged with offences associated with terrorism. He had sought stay of the trial as an abuse of process saying that he had been tortured by English US and Pakistani authorities. The judge made an order as to what parts of the . .
[2006] EWCA Crim 4, Times 19-Jan-06, [2006] 1 WLR 1361

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.88666

Memory Corporation v Sidhu (No 2): CA 3 Dec 1999

Where a party applied to court for an ex parte order, counsel had direct duties to the court, and also the supporting legal team and clients had continuing and overlapping duties. There was little to be gained by trying to analyze these things too closely to apportion blame. Here counsel had applied to and misadvised the court on the practice, and documents produced were unreliable and possibly from an unlawful source. Where a defending party risked contempt proceedings, and was ordered to file affidavit evidence in respect of that matter, any claim for privilege against self-incrimination should be made before the affidavit is made. It was inappropriate to be asked first to file the affidavit, and then to ask the court to inspect and decide. The privilege was available to be exercised in contempt proceedings within the same proceedings as the main action.
Mummery LJ said that: ‘It cannot be emphasised too strongly that in an urgent without notice hearing for a freezing order as well as for a search order or any other form of interim injunction, there is a high duty to make full, fair and accurate disclosure of material information to the court and to draw the court’s attention to significant factual, legal and procedural aspects of the case. It is the particular duty of the advocate to see that the correct legal procedures and forms are used, that a written skeleton argument and properly drafted order are prepared by him personally and lodged with the court before the oral hearing, and that at the hearing the court’s attention is drawn by him to unusual features of the evidence adduced, to the applicable law and to the formalities and procedure to be observed.’
Robert Walker LJ discussed the apparent gathering of evidence by unlawful means and said that this has not in general led to its exclusion under the English law of evidence. It was far from obvious that concerns of this nature ‘should be added to the heavy responsibilities already undertaken by lawyers who are making a without notice application, except perhaps in circumstances where the evidence in question is of central importance to the application’. Even when the evidence is of central importance, for example evidence relating to the sale of contraband goods in a case of piracy of intellectual property rights, trap orders and other conduct involving impersonation or deception have been commonplace in the Chancery Division for a century or more, and do not seem to have attracted censure.
Mummery LJ, Robert Walker LJ
Times 15-Feb-2000, Gazette 27-Jan-2000, Times 03-Dec-1999, [2000] EWCA Civ 9, [2000] 1 WLR 1443
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
On Appeal fromMemory Corporation Plc and Another v Sidhu ChD 21-May-1999
Where counsel proposing an asset freezing order fails to mention a case relevant to the issue, the order need not thereby be discharged. This is as against a failure to disclose a material fact, which would lead to a discharge of the order. . .
Gazette 16-Jun-99, Times 31-May-99
ApprovedDubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Al Alawi and Others ComC 3-Dec-1998
The claimants had brought proceedings against their former sales manager for accepting bribes and secret commission from outsiders. In support of their claim the claimants had obtained a search and seizure order and a worldwide freezing injunction, . .
Times 06-Jan-99, [1999] 1 WLR 1964, [1998] EWHC 1202 (Comm), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 478, [1999] 1 All ER 703, [1999] 1 All ER (Comm) 1

Cited by:
See AlsoMemory Corporation Plc, Datrontech Hong Kong Limited v Sukhbir Singh Sidhu, Sunsar Limited ChD 3-Nov-1999
. .
[1999] EWHC Ch 197
CitedJohn Louis Carter Fourie v Allan Le Roux and others CA 7-Mar-2005
The defendant’s company in South Africa had become insolvent and the claimant had recovered judgment for arrears of rent. They obtained a freezing order against the defendant. The defendant appealed saying the court did not have jurisdiction, and . .
[2005] EWCA Civ 204, Times 25-Apr-05
CitedFourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
[2007] UKHL 1, Times 25-Jan-07, [2007] 1 WLR 320, [2007] 1 All ER 1087, [2007] Bus LR 925
CitedFranses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
[2007] EWHC 2442 (Ch)
CitedTchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
[2010] EWCA Civ 908, [2010] WLR (D) 217, [2010] 2 FLR 814

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.83628

Belgolaise Sa v Purchandani: QBD 24 Jun 1998

Committal proceedings for contempt should be only the last resort and for flagrant refusal to disclose in breach of court order. It must be exceptional to dispense with penal notice, and impossible to do so retrospectively.
Colman J
Times 30-Jul-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998
Cited by:
CitedABC and Others v CDE and Others QBD 3-Nov-2009
The first claimant sought committal of the first defendant for contempt of court, alleging breach of a freezing order, saying that the defendant had created a sham debt and repaid it.
Held: There had been no genuine loan agreement, and the . .
[2009] EWHC 2718 (QB)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.78323

Attorney General v Independent Television News and Others: QBD 12 May 1994

A complaint of contempt of court was defeated by a deal in the trial which had worked to reduce any risk of prejudice.
Times 12-May-1994
Contempt of Court Act 1981 1 2
Cited by:
Appeal fromAttorney General v Independent Television News and Others CA 1995
Leggatt LJ said that counsel for the Attorney General was correct when he submitted that: ‘It does not follow that because a risk had been created by the broadcast, further publication in newspapers would not create fresh and added risk of . .
[1995] 2 All ER 370

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.77952

Attorney-General v Birmingham Post and Mail Ltd: QBD 31 Aug 1998

The questions asked of a court when staying a criminal trial because of newspaper reporting, and when assessing a contempt of court, are different, and the stay of a trial need have no implication that a contempt has been committed. The strict liability rules did not help. Simon Brown LJ said: ‘It seems to me necessarily to follow . . that one and the same publication may well constitute a contempt and yet, even though not substantially mitigated in its effect by a temporary stay and/or change of venue, not so prejudice the trial as to undermine the safety of any subsequent conviction. To my mind that can only be because section 2(2) postulates a lesser degree of prejudice than is required to make good an appeal against conviction . . In short section 2(2) is designed to avoid (and where necessary punish) publications even if they merely risk prejudicing proceedings, whereas a stay will generally only be granted where it is recognised that any subsequent conviction would otherwise be imperilled, and a conviction will only be set aside . . if it is actually unsafe.’
As to the case of Unger, Simon Brown LJ said: ‘I still think that to create a seriously arguable ground of appeal is a sufficient basis for finding strict liability contempt. Clearly it is a relevant consideration too that when a judge at first instance is deciding whether or not to grant a temporary stay. But more particularly the trial judge will ask himself: ‘is there a real danger that the jury cannot reach a just verdict, or the defendant have a fair trial?’ The judge will have to form a view as to just how seriously prejudicial the publication is, to what extent it can be mitigated by special directions, how desirable it is to avert a possible risk of a successful appeal on that ground, and how inconvenient and costly in the particular circumstances a stay would be (depending in large part no doubt on how far into the trial the problem arises).’
Simon Brown LJ, Thomas J
Times 31-Aug-1998, Gazette 30-Sep-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 769, [1999] 1 WLR 361, [1999] EMLR 39, [1998] 4 All ER 49
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 2(2)
Citing:
CitedAttorney General v Michael Ronald Unger; Manchester Evening News Limited and Associated Newspapers Limited Admn 3-Jul-1997
Complaint was made that the defendant newspapers had caused a serious prejudice to a trial by articles published before the trial of the defendant in criminal proceedings. The defendant pleaded guilty to theft at the magistrates’ court after she had . .
[1997] EWHC Admin 624, [1998] 1 Cr AR 308

Cited by:
CitedAllen v The Grimsby Telegraph and Another QBD 2-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to prevent publication of his name in the context of the making of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO). He had been convicted of offences against sex workers. An order had been made preventing disclosure of his address, but . .
[2011] EWHC 406 (QB)
CitedHM Attorney General v MGN Ltd and Another Admn 29-Jul-2011
The police arrested a man on suspicion of the murder of a young woman. He was later released and exonerated, and a second man arrested and later convicted. Whilst the first was in custody the two defendant newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Sun . .
[2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), [2012] ACD 13, [2012] EMLR 9, [2012] 1 WLR 2408, [2012] 1 Cr App R 1

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 December 2020; Ref: scu.77978