Tankaria & Ors v Morgan & Ors [2005] EWHC 3282 (Ch) (20 April 2005)

The application for committal fails because the claimants did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Miss Morgan intentionally breached the order, and because the procedural requirement of personal service of the penal notice was not satisfied.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2005] EWHC 3282 (Ch)
Parties: Claimant: Tankaria and Others; Defendant: Morgan and Others
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 20 April 2005
Procedural Posture: Committal Application in Civil Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Committal for Contempt of Court
Outcome: Application for committal dismissed
Legal Topics: Committal for Contempt, Mandatory Injunctions, Personal Service of Court Orders, Solicitor's Duties, Compliance With Court Orders

Civil Procedure Professional Conduct Committal for Contempt Mandatory Injunctions Personal Service of Court Orders Solicitor's Duties Compliance With Court Orders

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Tankaria and Others

Claimant

Morgan and Others

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application in Civil Proceedings / Judgment on Application for Committal for Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendants, particularly Miss Morgan, were in contempt of court for failing to comply with a mandatory order to deliver up documents and accounts to the claimants
2 Whether the procedural requirements for service of the order were met
3 Whether the breach of the order was intentional and proved beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for committal dismissed

Orders

Application for committal is dismissed.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.