20 Mar 2024
Although the judge below arguably erred in determining the leave application on the papers despite an express request for an oral hearing, on fresh consideration the Board's decision disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success; the intended appeal was hopeless and an extension of time to appeal was refused.
30 Apr 2021
Extension of time refused because applicant failed to provide any timely or adequate explanation for the delay or for non-receipt of the order, had not kept the court informed of his address, and the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success given there were no arguable grounds for judicial review; in all the circumstances it was not in the interests of justice to extend time.
20 Nov 2018
The court found the respondent was duly served with the varied MPS order endorsed with penal notice, intentionally and voluntarily failed to comply with the order (knowledge and non-accidental omission), had the ability to pay (save for the rent he paid directly to the landlord), and had not purged the contempt before the hearing; accordingly the respondent was found in civil contempt and committal to prison was appropriate subject to mitigation being heard.
29 Oct 2018
The court found the applicant's own contradictory statements undermined his claim of non‑receipt within the 14‑day period and, absent satisfactory and consistent evidence, there was no basis to extend time or grant the relief sought; the application was dismissed.
18 Sept 2018
Given valid service, repeated voluntary extensions and reminders, the plaintiff's unexplained failure to file the Statement of Claim and the need to resolve the welfare matters and not leave an interlocutory injunction in place indefinitely, the court exercised its discretion to grant the unless order directing the plaintiff to file the Statement of Claim within the specified time or face strike out and discharge of the injunction.
9 Nov 2017
The court found that personal service of the orders was properly effected, that the defendant produced no credible evidence to substantiate her claim the diamond had been sold prior to the injunction, and that she knowingly and willfully disobeyed the mandatory injunction; on that basis the court committed the defendant to 28 days' imprisonment and ordered costs on an indemnity basis.
13 Oct 2017
Having found that the respondents were repeatedly warned, publicly notified and had ample opportunity to leave, and that each intentionally remained and engaged in conduct inherently likely and in fact causing prejudice to the execution of the injunction, the court held each respondent guilty of criminal contempt; mens rea requires only basic intent to perform the impugned acts and the police arrests were properly grounded in statutory police powers rather than the injunction itself.
14 Apr 2016
The court refused to discharge the prohibition order. On the statutory framework and judicial discretion the judge found the Wife was entitled to a prohibition order to protect enforcement of urgent maintenance and costs, the Husband had not shown absence of risk of non-return or that enforcement would not be impeded, the service delays were explainable and not abusive, and the proposed surety was inadequately evidenced; accordingly the restraint was necessary and proportionate.
23 Mar 2000
The court accepted the applicant's witnesses and contemporaneous records as reliable proof that the 1st Respondent was served and aware of Rogers J's injunction and thus knowingly breached it, establishing contempt beyond reasonable doubt; the evidence was insufficient to prove the 2nd Respondent personally participated in breaches beyond reasonable doubt, so the application against him was dismissed.
21 Jul 1983
Directors can be punished for aiding and abetting their company's contempt independently of O.45 r.5; here the committal for breach of the Injunction Order was upheld because both directors had notice and sufficient evidence of involvement, but the committal based on failure to comply with the Anton Piller Order was quashed for lack of proof that the directors knew of the existence of the infringing watches and for insufficient service in relation to one appellant (service could have been dispensed with under r.7(7) but knowledge of existence of items was not proved beyond reasonable doubt).