Clarke v Clarke [2004] EWCA Civ 1185 (05 July 2004)

Clarke v Clarke [2004] EWCA Civ 1185 (05 July 2004)

The judge made an error regarding the corroborative evidence for the second incident, rendering the finding unsafe under the criminal standard of proof required for contempt. However, the findings for the first and third incidents were supported by credible and corroborated evidence and are upheld.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1185
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Donald Clarke; Respondent/defendant: Sandra Clarke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; finding for second incident deleted, findings for first and third incidents upheld.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunction Breach, Harassment, Burden and Standard of Proof
Family Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunction Breach Harassment Burden and Standard of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Clarke

Claimant/appellant

Sandra Clarke

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant breached the terms of an injunction by intimidating, harassing, or pestering the respondent and their children
  2. 2 Whether the judge's factual findings were vitiated by an error regarding corroborative evidence
  3. 3 Whether the criminal standard of proof was met in contempt proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The judge made an error regarding the corroborative evidence for the second incident, rendering the finding unsafe under the criminal standard of proof required for contempt. However, the findings for the first and third incidents were supported by credible and corroborated evidence and are upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; finding for second incident deleted, findings for first and third incidents upheld.

Orders

  • Reference to second incident deleted from committal findings
  • Appellant's publicly-funded costs to be subject to detailed assessment