Bank Notes

20/3/24

NAVIGATOR EQUITIES LTD v DERIPASKA [2024] EWCA Civ 268

Contains a useful summary of the law of contempt [47].  On the facts, the judge had been entitled to conclude that a case of contempt had been proved to the criminal standard.  The use of inappropriate or flamboyant language in an affidavit did not justify an award of costs on the indemnity basis [83].

5/3/24

ISBILEN v TURK [2024] EWHC 505 (Ch)

Summarises legal principles governing contempt applications [22].  On the facts, various breaches of a court order were held to have been established.

21/12/23

AHMED v REHMAN [2023] EWCA Civ 1504

A judge had been wrong to commit the appellant for contempt when there were no proceedings against the appellant personally and no particulars setting out the case against him.

3/6/20

YUZU HAIR AND BEAUTY LTD v SELVATHIRAVIAM [2020] EWHC 1539 (Ch)

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment on a defendant for failing to respond to an order requiring disclosure of assets, but the order was suspended for 21 day to give the defendant time to apply to clear his contempt and ask for his release or discharge.

11/6/20

OCADO GROUP PLC V McKEEVE [2020] EWHC 563 (Ch)

Considers principles to be applied on a hearing for criminal contempt.  On the facts the claim did not disclose a prima facie case and was dismissed.

11/6/20

OCADO GROUP PLC v McKEEVE [2020] EWHC 1363 (Ch)

Considers when the court should review a draft judgment [5].  Considers requirements for a committal application [18] including specificity of grounds, where the grounds are stated and limitations on the circumstances in which the court will allow amendment of the grounds.  Following analysis, the court refused to make a substantial change to its draft judgment.

2/6/20

McKAY v THE ALL ENGLAND LAWN TENNIS CLUB (CHAMPIONSHIPS) LTD [2020] EWCA Civ 695

On an application to commit a defendant for contempt for failing to comply with an order requiring him to provide information to the claimant, the judge hearing the application ought to have reminded the unrepresented defendant of his right to silence and his privilege against self-incrimination before asking him questions.  The judge should have asked if the defendant was content to proceed without legal representation and whether he might wish to apply for an adjournment.  The judge should have given consideration to imposing a non-custodial sentence and given the defendant an opportunity to make a plea in mitigation.  The defects were not, however, so grave as to require the committal order to be set aside on appeal, as they had resulted in no unfairness or injustice.

6/5/20

SUPER-MAX OFFSHORE HOLDINGS v MALHOTRA  2020] EWHC 1130 (Comm)

Considers guidance on applications for committal for contempt [6] - [7].  On the facts, a sentence of 15 months imprisonment was appropriate.

30/3/20

ANWER v CENTRAL BRIDGING LOANS LTD [2020] EWHC 765 (Ch)

Considers principles to be applied on an application for permission to bring proceedings to commit for contempt under CPR Part 81 on grounds of making a false statement of truth and interfering in the administration of justice [30].

15/1/19

HUGHES JARVIS LTD v SEARLE [2019] EWCA Civ 1

A judge had wrongly committed a party for contempt and struck out a case on grounds that a fair trial was not possible because the party had wrongly discussed the case during an adjournment and whilst giving evidence.  The obvious sanction open to a judge who discovers that a witness has communicated with some third party about his evidence during the course of the trial is to ascertain what was discussed and, if appropriate, to discount or give no weight to the evidence.  The court considered principles applicable to striking out on grounds that a fair trial is not possible [43].  The incident had not justified the exercise of the power.

16/10/15

POWER v HODGES [2015] EWHC 2931 (Ch)

Fines and suspended prison sentences imposed for contempt by company directors for failing to comply with a disclosure order.  Relevant principles reviewed [56].

15/7/14

RE K (A CHILD) [2014] EWCA Civ 905 

A judge should have recused herself from a committal application because the decision and comments made by the judge on applications relating to the respondent’s failure to return his son to the jurisdiction and likely imprisonment ,gave the impression that the judge had already decided the committal application.  The judge should also not have required the respondent to give evidence on the committal application which is a criminal proceeding in relation to which the respondent should have been told that he had an option whether to give evidence.

2/4/14

R v O’BRIEN [2014] UKSC 23

Breach of a restraint order under s 41 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is punishable as a contempt and is not in itself a crime.