QRS v Beach & Anor

QRS v Beach & Anor

Both Respondents were proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed contempt of court by breaching the terms of interim and final injunctions, including by operating and publishing prohibited material on the internet, failing to delete data, and, in the case of the Second Respondent, aiding and abetting those breaches. All procedural requirements were satisfied, and the evidence was unchallenged.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: QRS; First Defendant/first Respondent: Daniel Charles Beach; Second Respondent (no Longer Party): Rick Kordowski; Second Respondent: James Bloomfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Pending Submissions on Penalty
Outcome
Both Respondents found liable for contempt of court; matter adjourned for submissions on penalty.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Breach of Court Orders, Aiding and Abetting Contempt, Anonymity Orders, Internet Harassment
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Harassment Injunctions Committal for Contempt Breach of Court Orders Aiding and Abetting Contempt Anonymity Orders +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QRS

Claimant/applicant

Daniel Charles Beach

First Defendant/first Respondent

Rick Kordowski

Second Respondent (no Longer Party)

James Bloomfield

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Pending Submissions on Penalty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents breached interim and final court orders amounting to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether a non-party (Second Respondent) can be liable for aiding and abetting contempt
  3. 3 Whether the applications and service complied with procedural requirements

Ratio Decidendi

Both Respondents were proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed contempt of court by breaching the terms of interim and final injunctions, including by operating and publishing prohibited material on the internet, failing to delete data, and, in the case of the Second Respondent, aiding and abetting those breaches. All procedural requirements were satisfied, and the evidence was unchallenged.

Court Disposition

Both Respondents found liable for contempt of court; matter adjourned for submissions on penalty.

Orders

  • Respondents to attend court for submissions on penalty; opportunity to present medical evidence if relevant.