N.J.D.B. v. J.E.G. & JOHN NOEL JAMES ANDREW [2009] ScotSC 63 (22 January 2009)

N.J.D.B. v. J.E.G. & JOHN NOEL JAMES ANDREW [2009] ScotSC 63 (22 January 2009)

In a proof concerning variation of contact, where the defender has already given evidence in chief on matters relating to alleged contempt, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to warn her against self-incrimination for contempt during cross-examination. The proceedings are not contempt proceedings, and any findings of contempt in this context would not lead to punishment. The defender's late minute alleging a compromise of contempt issues is refused as irrelevant, unpled, and procedurally improper.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 63
Parties
Pursuer: NJDB; Defender: Mrs JEG; Curator Ad Litem and Third Party Minuter: John Noel James Andrew
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Family/contact Variation / Interlocutory Ruling During Proof
Outcome
Defender's motions refused; cross-examination to continue.
Legal Topics
Variation of Contact Orders, Contempt of Court, Privilege Against Self Incrimination, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Civil Procedure Variation of Contact Orders Contempt of Court Privilege Against Self Incrimination Procedural Fairness

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NJDB

Pursuer

Mrs JEG

Defender

John Noel James Andrew

Curator Ad Litem and Third Party Minuter

Procedural Posture

Family/contact Variation / Interlocutory Ruling During Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender is entitled to a warning against self-incrimination for contempt of court during cross-examination in a contact variation proof
  2. 2 Whether a late minute alleging compromise of contempt issues between parties should be received

Ratio Decidendi

In a proof concerning variation of contact, where the defender has already given evidence in chief on matters relating to alleged contempt, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to warn her against self-incrimination for contempt during cross-examination. The proceedings are not contempt proceedings, and any findings of contempt in this context would not lead to punishment. The defender's late minute alleging a compromise of contempt issues is refused as irrelevant, unpled, and procedurally improper.

Court Disposition

Defender's motions refused; cross-examination to continue.

Orders

  • Refuses to allow the minute for the defender (number 64 of process) to be received.
  • Refuses to administer a warning to the defender against self-incrimination for contempt of court.